On 04/05/2011 08:26 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > I don't understand, really, why it's such a big deal to revert a patch > quickly if it broke something.
To answer this as well, firstly a proposal that comes with a request to revert the wrong patch discredits itself. Breaking stuff by accident is a fact of life with gcc. You have to give people the chance to investigate and understand the problems. Since I know what it's like to break things by accident, I don't like to shout and complain at others when it happens to them, especially since it's never been more than an inconvenience for me if a particular revision of trunk was broken. I just use an earlier one, or revert the problematic patch. We're in stage 1, and this isn't primarily about keeping the autotesters happy. If that was our goal we'd stay in stage 4. > 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. Actually, this happened _after_ I checked in the fix for the bootstrap issue (well, HJ checked it in without waiting for the test results). When the tree was working again, you, HJ and bkoz decided that my patches needed to be reverted, based on no actual facts whatsoever. This demonstrates that we need to be careful, and that the decision to revert something cannot be left to the whims of random people. Once I managed to reproduce the problem I gave an ETA for the fix. After that (on Sunday and early Monday) there was little activity on the bug. No one asked me to revert anything until _after_ the problem was fixed. Bernd
