On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 04/05/11 06:23, Steven Bosscher wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Bernd Schmidt <ber...@codesourcery.com> >> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Agreed. Note that in this particular case (and in most cases I can >> remember) the commit that broke things was identified correctly. This >> is what HJ's autotester is really good at. > It's reasonably good at identifying the breakage, but I have certainly > had cases where the autotester got it wrong as well. >
I think what Steven proposed is for bootstrap failures on more than one primary platforms. I don't see any harm to unblock GCC development while offender can work on it off-trunk BTW, I would recommend git mirror to work on such bugs off-trunk It is so convenient. -- H.J.
