-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 04/05/11 16:49, DJ Delorie wrote: >> What type of *proof* would you accept? >> >> o Bisecting the commit history until it doesn't fail any more? > > That isn't even *evidence* that the patch caused the bug, much less > proof. It only shows that the patch resulted in some bug happening, > but that bug might have been latent. Right. Often a bisect will catch the bug, but it's certainly not foolproof.
> If this is really what we want for an auto-revert trigger, then what > we need is a commit hook that builds every patch and rejects any that > cause problems. I suspect we really don't want that though. People could certainly make an argument for this; if we had the infrastructure which included this as part of patch tracking & management, it'd be hard to argue against it. > > "I think the bug is caused by X,Y,Z... anyone agree?" "Yeah, that > looks right." Right. Though often once we get to the point of knowing that a bug is caused by X,Y,Z we have enough information to go ahead and resolve the issue, it's just a matter of going through the bootstrap and testing process to help avoid introducing new problems. Jeff -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNm6YgAAoJEBRtltQi2kC79RkIAJrJJ9nVwe3wUAsMVsjTQq/B 7A2rDY7o1JZeo/f+51VF9ZAk8a6Uy+HzdNt0scJOwt56PT9ZghcFOcFYfB9hmth4 iOLOL1PoB6adZ1+76VsZq6BgZVQ7sXpUnyjQAZ99rtDMyyGPNpndTITFDCWbteMu YqY8NfYfn7hkuB7A26nNPkkw6sNRRMP+oUUsYnga1XQ+xBYZSNbflZzADAGWlAvR MTY/jBCxOzehnqI5Hus3k2kdjvlX0F6N2MYlFMPEsqJGJnkbIW14Y1mLWNPWSOmB vZ+7/SdelaMg55egg/RXUo9itSpOrpK79oqwNNKRJ5FR9hGYy5dFFE/h6A+Tb5k= =cYo3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
