On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 9, 2014, Brady Eidson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Jul 9, 2014, at 4:15 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Again, im not requesting anything new here. The consensus on webkit-dev >> has been to ping the author/reviewer on IRC or via email and comment in the >> original bug PRIOR to using webkitbot to start reverting the patch. >> >> >> I went through the first handful of emails on that thread. The original >> request that wasn't meeting a lot of opposition before I stopped digging >> through the thread was: >> "Please contact the author/reviewer and give them a reasonable amount of >> time *before rolling out their patch*." >> >> I did not reach the message where the consensus was "contact the author >> and reviewer manually, *do not use webkitbot*" >> >> I believe that using webkitbot: >> 1 - Comments in a new bugzilla created specifically because there's an >> issue >> 2 - Comments in the original bugzilla notifying of an issue >> > > It doesn't. The bot only files a new bug, make it a blocker of the > original bug, and then reopen the bug. > > It doesn't copy over any comments made in the new bug for example. > > Assuming my webkitbot command contains a description of the reason this >> patch is suspect, including a URL to the failure, can you further explain >> why using webkitbot is unreasonable? >> > > I'm not saying that using webkitbot is unreasonable. I'm saying that the > person trying to revert a patch should first inform the author/reviewer > first BEFORE start reverting the patch. > > Since webkitbot doesn't automatically post the details as to what failures > the patch caused, and one line description is almost never adequate (e.g. > needs a hyperlink to buildbot page, test failure diff or error log, et > c...), I don't see how using webkitbot in its current state could ever be > adequate. > > Of course, I'm not saying that webkitbot could never be improved to do > these things. > > > What things need to be done in addition to using 'webkitbot rollout' to > meet a sufficient standard of notification? I assume based on your comments > that it should: > > (1) Add a comment to the original bug that caused the regression (maybe > something like "this caused regression bug XXX" where XXX is the rollout > bug). > (2) Add links to diagnostic information about the problem (e.g. buildbot > results page showing the failure, or website URL illustrating a > regression). They should probably go in the bug reporting the regression, > not the original bug. > > Anything else? It seems like (1) and (2) could be done manually while also > using 'webkitbot rollout', and (1) could in principle be done by the bot. > Would you object if someone used 'webkitbot rollout' and then did (1) and > (2)? > It is my understanding that doing (1), (2), and 'webkit rollout' doesn't contradict the previously reached consensus. All I'm stating is doing (1) and (2) before reverting the patch has been the consensus. - R. Niwa
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
