From owner-freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org Thu Aug 29 19:05:14 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fcp@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E4B6DDABF for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 19:05:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46KBrV1stHz44l3 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 19:05:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 3E68DDDABD; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 19:05:14 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: fcp@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E1C4DDABC; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 19:05:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46KBrT2SJ5z44l2; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 19:05:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id x7TJ5BRs091372; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 12:05:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id x7TJ5Bw8091371; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 12:05:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <201908291905.x7TJ5Bw8091371@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: FCP 20190401-ci_policy: CI policy In-Reply-To: To: araujo@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 12:05:11 -0700 (PDT) CC: Kristof Provost , Konstantin Belousov , FreeBSD Hackers , Li-Wen Hsu , Ian Lepore , fcp@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 46KBrT2SJ5z44l2 X-Spamd-Bar: ++ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net has no SPF policy when checking 69.59.192.140) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [2.65 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.49)[0.485,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[dnsmgr.net]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.95)[0.946,0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.28)[0.278,0]; RCPT_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[7]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:13868, ipnet:69.59.192.0/19, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(0.04)[ip: (0.15), ipnet: 69.59.192.0/19(0.07), asn: 13868(0.05), country: US(-0.05)]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Community Proposals List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 19:05:14 -0000 (unneeded context removed) > > In either scenario we end up reducing test coverage, which means we?re > > going to push more bugs towards users. > > > > > I totally agree. This is an overly-bureaucratic solution in search of > > > a problem. > > > > > > If this needs to be addressed at all (and I'm not sure it does), then > > > another sentence or two in bullet item 10 in section 18.1 [*] of the > > > committer's guide should be enough. And even then it needn't be > > > overly-formal and should just mention that if a commit does break the > > > build the committer is expected to be responsive to that problem and > > > the commit might get reverted if they're unresponsive. I don't think > > > we need schedules. > > > > > I do feel that?s a better argument. We?ve always had a policy of > > reverting on request (AIUI), so this is more or less trying to be a > > strong restatement of that, more than a fundamental shift in policy. > > > > We don't have a policy to revert commit, actually revert commit is > something bad, it is kind of punishment, I have been there, nobody wants to > be there. Stop to push this non-sense argument. Here in lies one of the fundemental problems, this view by some that a "revert commit is something bad, it is kind of punishment". That is not true. Reverts are GREAT things, they allow the tree to be returned to a known state, usually quicly. The original commit is STILL IN SVN, and a bad revert can guess what.. be reverted!. IMHO the project as a whole needs to overcome its fear of reverts and start to use them for the great and powerful things that they are. This connection of bad and punishment needs to stop, and the sooner the better. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org