On 04/05/2011 02:23 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > However, my point is that developers can investigate breakage without > keeping the trunk broken.
If they can reproduce it; you don't always have access to the system that shows the breakage. A reversion policy that's too trigger-happy can leave you unable to make forward progress on an important patch. At the very least you'd need to write in stone that a patch can be reinstalled if the reporter of the problem is unwilling to assist in debugging or testing candidate patches. I agree that i686-linux bootstraps could be treated slightly more aggressively, but I'd still like to limit the set of people who can make such a decision. In this particular case, if anyone wanted the patch reverted they should have said something on Friday or Saturday. The scale of the problem wasn't apparent to me at the beginning since I was bootstrapping successfully on two different machines, both on x86_64 and i686 (admittedly due to idiocy in the way I was configuring the compiler). Bernd
