Stefan Krah added the comment: > I'm not going to argue this any further, but "recent" is exactly the > point...if all of the bots had turned red you'd understand that it needed to > be fixed *immediately* or the triggering change (regardless of what the > actual bug was) backed out. Since it isn't all the bots it isn't that > critical, but eventually we want to make it critical (ie: someday it will be > a requirement that *all* stable bots pass before a change gets > *committed*...but that day is still a longer way off than I'd like, since I > at least don't have much time for working on the workflow stuff).
How is this supposed to work though? In this case 6c468df214dc and 227ce85bdbe0 need to be backed out, since they apparently also broke the OpenIndiana bot long ago (why wasn't that discovered?). However, I don't feel that it is my place to back them out, since I did not commit them and might step on other people's toes. I don't think that the burden of having green buildbots should be on the person who commits something that *exposes* existing issues (unless, as you say, *all* buildbots turn red). ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue22090> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
