> On Jul 9, 2014, at 1:43 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote:
>> When the bug for a rollout is created, the original bug is automatically >> reopened. > > Which makes sense when a patch breaks something, whether the resolution is > the author following up with a fix *or* the rollout committing.’ > > This is not a reason to avoid creating a rollout patch. > >> Also, the bot doesn't provide enough information as to what's breaking >> because it only takes a single line of description on IRC. > > This seems like a complaint you have with the tool that can be fixed. This is > not a reason to avoid creating a rollout patch. > > This is not a complaint about the tool. In practice, the bot can't figure > out why a given patch needs to be rolled out. It's the responsibility of the > person who is rolling out the patch to give necessary details. Of course the bot can’t know, and of course it’s the rollout’er’s responsibility. I believe the thing that has drawn this thread out was the request to “do this work manually before using the tool” But I find the request to “do this manually instead of using the tool” bizarre because: 1 - The tool objectively meets most of the requirements, except for forcing a detailed description and URL to the failure. 2 - The tool objectively meets all of the requirements if the person using it provides the necessary data to the tool. 3 - You requested that creating the rollout patch should *not* be done, even though nobody presented a reason why the mere existence of the rollout patch is a problem. 4 - Relying on tools for common processes is a *good* thing. >> 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. > This statement seems at odds with how webkitbot (or an earlier form thereof) > has been used countless times, since it has been reverting patches with only > 1-line explanations for years without an uproar. > > Not at all. The point is that the person who requested to rollout a patch > should provide the detailed explanation as to why the patch has to be rolled > out, or exactly what got broken by the patch. This can be done by manually looking up email addresses, emailing people, logging in to bugzilla, and typing a comment; Like you requested. Or this can be done by using the tool we already have, but being aware to give the full context and a URL to breakage. > If the premise of this email thread is “please provide a detailed description > of why a patch is a candidate to be rolled out, including a link to the > build/test failures”, then I wholeheartedly agree that webkitbot should be > enhanced to allow and encourage this. > > Giving a detailed description has already been a prerequisite to revert a > patch. I don't see why we need to enhance the tool to continue doing what we > have always done. I don’t see the *need* either, because it already supports everything required. > If you want to enhance the tool to help this process, please go ahead but I'm > not singing up to do that work. I don’t expect you to. I’m just trying to make it clear that I’m not going to start performing a checklist of manual work instead as originally requested; I intend to keep using the tool, but being more aware of giving the additional context. Brady
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
