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. > I don't see who this benefits - assuming that a given patch is broken and needs a small delta to be correct, it's just as easy to submit a patch with a small delta as it is to submit the small delta. Leaving the broken patch in the tree for any period of time after it's known to be bad is a waste of everybody's time. - James > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---