I am supportive of auto-revert as long as we apply it universally. So many
times the tree has been busted forever because of a vacuum of action by the
sheriff.
Also FYI - the trybots never work for me on my home system. No idea why.
-Ben
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:05 PM, John Abd-El-Malek <j...@chromium.org> wrote:
> But this means that the person didn't use the trybot.
>
> I think we need to be harsher on people who commit with changes that didn't
> complete or failed on the trybot. They need to have a really good reason as
> to why they want to try their change on the buildbot and possibly delay many
> other engineers.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Ben Goodger (Google) <b...@chromium.org>wrote:
>
>>
>> The most common case of "< 5 minute" bustage fix is "file was omitted
>> from changelist".
>>
>> -Ben
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Peter Kasting <pkast...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Ojan Vafai <o...@chromium.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> To be clear, here's the proposed policy: Any change that would close
>> the
>> >> tree can be reverted if it can't be fixed in <2 minutes.
>> >
>> > How about:
>> > If a change closes the tree, the change author has 1 or 2 minutes to
>> respond
>> > to a ping. The change should be reverted if the author doesn't respond,
>> if
>> > he says to revert, or if he does not say he has a fix within the next 5
>> > minutes.
>> > I can't fix _any_ problem in 2 minutes. But I can fix most of them in
>> 5.
>> > The goal is to allow the author a reasonable chance to fix trivial
>> problems
>> > before we revert. And I think the tree should go ahead and close during
>> > that interval.
>> > PK
>> > >
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
