Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> writes: > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 00:51, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: > >> I agree. >> >> At the summit in October there was a discussion about this. I was on >> the side of fast rollback for new failures. Would anybody care to >> present the opposite view with regard to a patch like this? Can we >> agree on fast rollback for bootstrap failures on x86/x86_64 GNU/Linux >> systems? > > I completely support this approach.
I would agree with faster rollback *if* the person doing the revert *first* proved that the patch they're reverting actually caused the bug, and not just exposed some pre-existing bug elsewhere. And got someone else to agree that reverting is the right thing to do. As a maintainer of non-primary targets, I see lots of perfectly normal patches that allow a bug elsewhere to exert itself, and I think that's a completely different situation than a patch which introduces a bug.
