I mean revert as few as possible changes (ideally one single commit) causing failure.
2006/12/14, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
What do you want to roll back? Everything since that point in time? Mikhail Loenko wrote: > +1 for rolling back the changes. > > We shoud aim 100% of up-time. If the build is working > we can do further work, test and commit the changes, etc > > Let's roll it back so that other people who work on > the project could continue > > Thanks, > Mikhail > > 2006/12/14, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> On 12/14/06, Alexey Varlamov wrote: >> > >> > 2006/12/14, Tim Ellison : >> > > Alexey Varlamov wrote: >> > > > Fixed svn as agreed, both classlib and drlvm impl. >> > > >> > > Given it a VMI modification I would like to have had a more >> coordinated >> > > change, so the IBM VME can be changed too. We are also trying to >> get a >> > > snapshot out so this would be one I would defer until that is done. >> > >> > AFAIU the snapshot is pointless if taken from broken repository state. >> > All CC systems were FAILED for > 2 days, since the initial >> > modification which provoked this discussion. I presume it is important >> > enough to get back to PASSED status quickly. >> >> >> >> I support Alexey's point here. >> >> Sorry for being annoying but can not really understand what is the >> problem >> here with restoring things as they were before CC went down. And after >> that we can work out an appropriate solution and coordinate a change >> without >> hurrying. >> >> Thanks, >> Stepan. >> >> Besides my speculation >> > was that current agreement reflects IBM VME behavior too so it does >> > not require urgent update. >> > >> > > >> > > Geir has some further questions on the rationale for the change. >> Let's >> > > give it more than 24hrs for agreement before committing. >> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > Tim >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Stepan Mishura >> Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division >> >>
