On 6/21/16 8:34 AM, Lars Bergstrom wrote:
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.
Right, that's how backouts land.
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.
No, absolutely not. Backouts due to test failure are done as an `hg revert`. Sounds like something here got miscommunicated. :)
I'm aware of exactly one instance of history editing happening on m-i in the time we've been using it. It happened when someone incorrectly pushed a gigantic "test" file that significantly (like 50% if I remember correctly) increased the size of the repo. Obviously just doing a revert on that would do nothing about the problem of it bloating the repo size... This was obviously a much bigger deal than a normal backout, and involved installing commit hooks to block the relevant sha, etc, etc.
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.
Right, makes sense if you thought we were editing history! But we're not doing that.
-Boris _______________________________________________ dev-servo mailing list dev-servo@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-servo
