On 03 Feb 2016 22:35, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Dienstag, 2. Februar 2016, 02:33:30 schrieb Mike Frysinger: > > > I took the liberty of doing (2) and reverted the commit. Not sure why > > > this needs so much discussion; after all a broken tree is always > > > suboptimal. > > > > unless things are on fire (which i don't think this was), i don't > > generally clamor for 0-day fixes. if we can find a better fix in > > a day or so, then i'm happy for that. i dislike repos with history > > that is just a constant stream of land, revert, land, revert, land. > > > > not that i'm saying your revert was wrong ... just airing my > > general personal preferences. > > You're right of course... but there's one thing we have to keep in mind. > > We're not running a project were releases are made from the vcs. The vcs *is* > the release... and whatever is out there gets pushed to users. > > This is why my personal preference is more to revert if I'm not sure that the > fix will happen soon.
which is why you weigh the impact on users. how many people are actually affected and for how long ? in this case, fairly sure no actual user saw the failure on their system. -mike
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
