sheriff's keep the tree *open* WAS: [chromium-dev] More sheriffs?

2009-11-13 Thread Ojan Vafai
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Finnur Thorarinsson fin...@google.comwrote: If the sheriff load is too much for two people to devote 100% of their time to, then there is something wrong with the process. It's

Re: sheriff's keep the tree *open* WAS: [chromium-dev] More sheriffs?

2009-11-13 Thread Jeremy Orlow
+1 (for what it's worth) On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@google.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.comwrote: On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Finnur Thorarinsson fin...@google.comwrote: If the sheriff load is too much for two people

Re: sheriff's keep the tree *open* WAS: [chromium-dev] More sheriffs?

2009-11-13 Thread Peter Kasting
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@google.com wrote: The goal of the sheriff is to keep the tree open as long as possible without carpeting over regressions. The sheriff should suffer through minor flakiness without closing the tree (e.g. a couple flaky webkit tests should not

Re: sheriff's keep the tree *open* WAS: [chromium-dev] More sheriffs?

2009-11-13 Thread Mark Mentovai
Ojan Vafai o...@google.com wrote: I don't think this is what sheriffs are supposed to do, although there is clearly not consensus here. The goal of the sheriff is to keep the tree open as long as possible without carpeting over regressions. The sheriff should suffer through minor flakiness