All, --- Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. > Maybe we could have the default depend on which stage of development the tree is currently in. For example during stages 1 and 2 the default could be disabled and during stage 3 it could be enabled. Cheers Graham
