On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Bernd Schmidt <ber...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> For i686-linux bootstraps it's hard to argue against it, but in general > I find it easier to cope with the occasional broken tree than with > getting patches reverted when you can't reproduce the failure. Maybe you find that easier, but auto-testers do not. That's a point you completely ignore. And other people than you also do not find that easier. There are auto-testers for performance and regression hunting and they simply stop working if bootstrap breaks. Also, scripts to bisect to a regression have a higher risk of running into a broken tree if bootstrap is broken over a longer period of time. That's an effect that may be felt for months/years. There were ~80 checkins on the trunk since r171843, most of them non-trivial. If one of those introduced a regression it is now more difficult to automatically identify which patch introduced it. I don't understand, really, why it's such a big deal to revert a patch quickly if it broke something. Yes, it should be done with care. But not depending on weekends and holidays. For some people the weekend is the only time they can work on GCC (hi!) and autotesters don't care if it's weekend or not :-) You feel mobbed and I'm sorry you feel that way, but it shows that a lot of people tried to work on GCC in that weekend. Ciao! Steven
