On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 09:44 -0400, Richard Kenner wrote: > > 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. > > Although I certainly agree that the tree shouldn't remain broken, I'm also > sympathetic to the need to be able to have an environment in which the > developer can debug the patch because it presumably didn't fail in their > environment if they commited it.
The issue I see here is that people tend not to report what's needed: - base svn revision - configure line - CC, BOOT_CFLAGS and other common make/env variables - GCC version and triplet used to compile stage one I think the classic "patch tested on platform X" should mention the above information on patch submission email (with GCC testresult URL when available), and "bootstrap broken" PR too in the first message of the PR. (test_summary doesn't report the last two pieces.) C only trunk bootstrap is less than 10 minutes on gcc10 and gcc20 (1) thanks to AMD and Intel donations, but without the above information CPU power is of little use :). Sincerely, Laurent (1) http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm
