On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Simon Fraser <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 2014, at 1:15 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Brady Eidson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Jul 9, 2014, at 12:39 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Tim Horton <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jul 9, 2014, at 12:10 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Could we teach webkitbot to do an appropriate notification with a >>> waiting period? Either as part of rollout or add a new command to do it. >>> >>> >>> It already does. The "waiting period" is defined by when the person who >>> asked for the rollout sets the cq+ bit on the rollout patch. >>> >> >> I don't think creating a rollout patch should be the standard method of >> notifying the author/reviewer. We should be informing the author/reviewer >> ahead of the time. >> >> >> We already have an automated tool that quickly and easily notifies the >> author/reviewer, and that tool also happens to create the rollout patch. >> >> As Tim points out, the rollout patch is never landed unless a reviewer >> (usually the person who created the rollout patch) sets the cq+ bit on it. >> >> I don't see what negative effect the mere existence of the rollout patch >> has, or why we should codify into the process that a rollout patch is *not* >> created when notifying the author/reviewer. >> > > When the bug for a rollout is created, the original bug is automatically > reopened. > > Also, the bot doesn't provide enough information as to what's breaking > because it only takes a single line of description on IRC. > > It's crucial that whoever reverting a patch provide a detailed explanation > on what build or test failed and provide a hyper link to build.webkit.org. > Otherwise the original author and the reviewer may have no idea what went > wrong. > > > I think the person who does the rollout should provide sufficient info in > the rollout bug to justify the rollout. I would prefer this to new policy > that requires emailing the committer and reviewer. > Well, providing details in the bug would essentially email the author & the reviewer since they're auto cc'ed. I agree commenting on the Bugzilla is better so that others could follow. - R. Niwa
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
