Mark Mitchell wrote: > Andrew Haley wrote: > >>> I agree. I also agree that if someone breaks Java, they should be >>> required to fix the problem. In fact, we could have the rule that the >>> Java maintainers get to revert a patch summarily based merely on the >>> fact that there exists a Java post-patch failure that does not occur >>> pre-patch. >> >> OK. I'm hoping that the java mainatiners won't have _all_ the burden, >> though. >> >> We should have a trial phase where java build breakage on the >> autobuilders >> is mailed to the maintainers who checked in patches and to the java >> maintainers, and we'll see how it goes. >> >> I'm open-minded about this, but if it doesn't work we should be >> prepared to >> revert the policy. > > I think that's reasonable. Perhaps a 30-day trial period, after the > autobuilder is set up? Then if we're seeing that the Java maintainers > have had to beat people up a lot -- and particularly if that isn't > yielding results -- then we revert?
OK, but perhaps with a slightly longer trial period. I'm not hung up on that though. > To be clear, I have no special decision-making power here. I'm hoping > we can build a consensus to move in this direction, but it has to be a > consensus decision. Understood. Andrew.
