On 21/06/16 13:34, Lars Bergstrom wrote:
On Jun 20, 2016, at 9:25 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote:
On 6/20/16 8:35 PM, Lars Bergstrom wrote:
Backouts came up in the discussion, and I tried to make it pretty
clear that they are not compatible with a GitHub-style
development model (even if you *could* hypothetically do crazy
things like force-pushing rewritten histories to master).
Wait, why are rewritten histories relevant? A backout doesn't
involve rewriting history...
If a backout lands as a `git revert` of the offending commit(s) I'm
certainly less concerned, as that's annoying but not impossible for
people to continue rebasing against.
The way it was explained to me (and I may have been
misunderstanding!) is that if a batch of changes land on m-i but then
fail tests, they are removed and there is the mercurial equivalent of
a force-push back to m-i without those changes in the history. That
workflow made me concerned for people with an open PR, as if the PR
was based on master at commit A, commit B lands and they rebase
against it, but then B disappears from the history, getting their PR
landable again is likely going to require intervention by a git
expert.
There has been a communication breakdown. What happens on m-i is the
equivalent of |git revert|.
In general my main concern for people contributing through the GH UI
would be whether a reopening the PRs would work. I guess a bot could
make it happen (but rebasing on top of a revert is a little tricky
because git tends to assume the patch already landed, so you need to
cherry-pick instead).
_______________________________________________
dev-servo mailing list
dev-servo@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-servo
