On 2014-10-15, 10:19 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote:
Jonas Sicking writes:
But any type of regression is cause for backout.
While I agree regressions are bad, this isn't the usual process.
If it were, then I wouldn't bother filing bugs, but merely back
out the offending change.
There is some kind test for whether the regression costs more than
the improvements made, but it comes down to a judgement call from
the module owner AIUI.
Regressions that sit in the tree make it dramatically much harder to
write and test other patches. It's generally much better to back the
offending patch out to allow everyone else to go at full speed.
Perhaps it is, but this would be quite a change in process.
Some kind of policy or guidelines would be helpful, or it could
well get out of control.
Backouts usually cause regressions too.
In my experience, regressions that break something in a way that makes
dogfooding difficult are open to a backout without questions asked
policy (but often times in practice we'd try to reach out to the author
and the folks who know the area of the code). For other regressions we
typically file follow-up bugs.
Note that the definition of what makes dogfooding difficult is has not
been entirely consistent all the time.
Cheers,
Ehsan
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
