Meant to hit reply-all
I want to caveat this on having less flakiness. ;-) See my comments on IRC
about some tests randomly making a mess of themselves then going green
again.
-Ben
I'll also add this could be done automatically based on the set of tests we
define as not flaky.
I always feel less bad about being reverted when it's a mindless script
doing it. ;D
-Ben
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Peter Kasting <pkast...@google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Nicolas Sylvain <nsylv...@chromium.org>wrote:
>
>> I don't think anyone suggested "immediate auto revert".
>>
>
> Ben Goodger: "I am supportive of auto-revert as long as we apply it
> universally"
> Kenneth Russell: "I completely support immediate backouts of changes that
> break the tree"
>
> 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.
>>
>
> Irrelevant to the argument I'm making. I claim that irrespective of what
> happened on the trybots, authors who break something should have a brief
> grace period to fix their problems.
>
> at least it won't keep the tree closed until you try to figure out what
>> the problem is.
>>
>
> This is why I suggested reverting if the author hasn't immediately jumped
> on the problem and determined the fix. I think everyone agrees that we
> don't want breaking changes to sit clogging the pipeline for long period of
> time.
>
> PK
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
