No, we said if somebody breaks the build, then it can be reverted. Breaking the tests does not qualify. You were out of line. I just got telling off people in Lucene-land for this. I also said that if it were up to me, I would warn somebody about the anti social behavior once, and remove their commit privs on the second time. It is THAT much of a problem in the community dynamics.
Don't do that again. -g On May 18, 2011 1:50 AM, "Bert Huijben" <b...@qqmail.nl> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Hyrum K Wright [mailto:hy...@hyrumwright.org] >> Sent: woensdag 18 mei 2011 1:11 >> To: dev@subversion.apache.org >> Cc: comm...@subversion.apache.org >> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1104610 - in >> /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc: props.c wc_db.c wc_db.h >> >> I understand the desire to get the buildbots green again, and I'm >> sorry these revisions which I committed broke the bots, but a little >> patience might have been useful here. We have a long tradition of >> allowing folks to attempt to fix problems, rather than reverting their >> commits without consultation. I kinda wish you'd have given me >> another 12 hours to attempt to fix it, rather than reverting. > > We also have the generic rule that any committer (full or partial) may > revert something that makes it impossible for them to do further > development. (See hacking) > And tomorrow morning the asf repository will be readonly for quite some > time, so waiting till after that will probably cause more delays. > > Besides, you just mailed that you weren't going to fix this issue... :-) > Somehow the test that should have picked up the original failure is broken. > It thinks that no output at all for a recursive proplist is ok. > > So two different bugs (the local changes one; and the base-deleted one) > together kept the prop_tests.py 15 test succeeding. > > Bert >
