On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 14:42 +0200, Joren DC wrote: > Hi Xisco, *, > > Xisco Faulí schreef op 5/06/2014 10:32: > > does it make sense to include another status for the regression issues > > where the problematic commit has been identified ? I'm asking it > > because yesterday I spent some time on this task and I could chase > > down two regressions, one of them made by a Collabora developer ( I've > > already sent him an email ) and the other by a merged AOO commit. > I'm not sure about this.
So, to me personally, this practice of "witch-hunting" (or finger-pointing) really bogs me down, especially I receive such notice hundreds of times during a typical development cycle. Since statistically every change one makes can and will cause *some* regressions in some obscure corners, this disadvantages those who make lots of changes, even when those changes are to fix other regressions and bugs. And some of these sometimes escalate to a (often repeated) demand of a revert of the commit, which is another blow especially when the change itself took weeks and weeks of careful coding to get conceived. One can be as careful as possible, and still (and almost always) break somethign somewhere. Kohei _______________________________________________ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
