On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Peter Kasting <pkast...@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:05 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.
>>
>
> There are a large number of reasons why the trybots can have false
> negatives or false positives, or why it's easy to break things even when
> you're trying to make use of them. Trybots are great, they're not a
> panacea.
>
> I strongly oppose any kind of "immediate auto-revert" policy.
>
I don't think anyone suggested "immediate auto revert".
Try bots are not perfect. They won't get all the failures. But even if it's
not entirely your fault, it does not mean that your change deserves to be in
the tree.
It sucks to have your change reverted, and it will add a 10-minute overhead
for you to un-revert the change on your working copy, but at least it won't
keep the tree closed until you try to figure out what the problem is.
And you can blame this 10-minute time wasted on the try bots. We always keep
adding new things to it... but unless we get thousands of machines (which we
don't have the capacity of handling right now), we won't be able to test
everything and build all possible configurations.
Nicolas
> PK
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
