On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Ilmari Karonen <nos...@vyznev.net> wrote: > On 03/24/2011 08:00 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote: >> * We need to set a clear policy for reverting problematic revisions >> (fixme's) if they aren't addressed quickly enough (again, let's say >> within a week). Currently we largely leave them be, but I think we >> should go back to something more decisive and closer to the "keep >> trunk runnable, or else Brion kicks your ass" paradigm and make it a >> bit more formal this time > > This made me realize something that's only tangentially related to the > existing thread, namely that we're currently using the "fixme" status in > Code Review for two different kinds of commits: > > 1. commits that are broken and need to be fixed or reverted ASAP, and > 2. commits that do more or less work, but need some followup work. > > An example of the first kind of commit would be something that throws > PHP fatal errors on a substantial fraction of page views. An example of > the second kind might be something as minor as forgetting to update > RELEASE_NOTES. > > Of course, there's also a wide range of shades of gray between these two > extremes, such as changes that work most of the time but break some > unusual setups or use cases. Still, I do think that most "fixme" > commits can be fairly cleanly assigned to one or the other of these > categories, simply by asking oneself "Can I run a usable wiki with this > code as it is?" > > I think it might be a good idea to split these two cases into separate > states. My suggestion, off the top of my head, would be to leave > "fixme" for the latter and add a new "broken" status for the former. > > Of course, we really shouldn't expect to have any "broken" commits in CR > at any given time, since they really should be reverted and marked as > such by the first person who can do so. But I think that being able to > mark a commit as broken and needing a revert, even if you can't revert > it yourself just then for some reason (no time, no svn access, > whatever), could be a good idea. It would also make it less likely for > such commits to get lost (even temporarily) among the less urgent "fixme"s. > > (Ps. I'd also like to note that I very much agree with what Roan wrote > in general, and I'd very much like to see us going back to something > like the system he proposed. +1.) >
+1 to everything Roan said and +1 to everything above. -Chad _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
