-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 04/05/11 01:23, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 04/04/11 19:14, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >>>> >>> Another danger is getting a mob effect as in PR48403 (which I've also >>> seen happen on other occasions) and getting the wrong set of patches >>> reverted by trigger-happy people. To be blunt, there are some people on >>> this list who tend to react panicky to bugs and skip proper analysis (as >>> in this case); I don't want to encourage such folks to revert stuff >>> willy-nilly. Sometimes you just need a bit of time and assistance from >>> testers who actually see the problem to understand it. >>> >>> If there's a change in policy I'd at least make allowances for weekends. >>> There's considerably less traffic on the mailing lists on Saturdays and >>> Sundays, which suggests few people will be inconvenienced if the tree is >>> broken during such a time. We also don't want everyone to only check >>> things in on Mondays because they worry they'll come back after a >>> weekend to find their stuff gone from the tree. >> I definitely think that if there is a policy change that an allowance be >> made for weekends/holidays and that if a patch has been identified and >> the offender has acknowledged the issue and is actively working on the >> problem give the offender time to resolve the issue. > > If a developer breaks bootstrap and cannot fix it immediately, the > patch should be reverted and the developer can fix the patch offline > and re-merge the patch. The focus of the policy should not be the > convenience of the developer who broke bootstrap on multiple targets. And what precisely does "immediately" mean in this context? 1 hour, 3 hours? If the breakage happens on a Friday evening, does the developer have until Monday morning to at least take a looksie? What if the problem exposes a heisenbug that is dependent on a variety of factors that happen to exist in the tree and on one tester's box (say stack layout due to environment size)? What does immediately mean when the developer isn't even aware his patch caused a problem for a week?
Reversion shouldn't be how we start the process of dealing with breakage, it should be how we deal with it when the developer can't address the problem in a reasonable timeframe. Where reasonable is going to vary based on the specific circumstances. I hate breakages in the tree as much as the next guy and it absolutely frustrates the hell out of me. But I'd much rather give the developer a chance to see the bug and do some root cause analysis at a slight inconvenience to myself. jeff -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNmy4qAAoJEBRtltQi2kC7vjsIAL2yFoRwp51Q+S4B8D121feF TIOMASNSyV6iaSaQAkLHBGW+DZS7sjwBHDnwHYxbiZNbs1BTNTaBnkpfRwhno7wH OJOKDSIFEf4cYo7Lm8BTCrqdWtbyc0kTIhoCNaEDRo1tWsGg7Pw0aUVS7tzHNadY P6vHCP0WIMEmSVtlTHKvS8Ae4UPBZ2FyD5bzXHBU/fuqaoPJZprWOsWl9I2Im+xy /SilV+6UYLThtY3Je4M8471Vu2TX0V+UcPCLTxUEBgwIARHEiDE/ehjfamkXTzFS byOgFhTGOosPltUkbSvcBEkcD8LnSI55+t8/sOsHv6LuaOOa2o18emPn3P7KQxY= =HcQ1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
