Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 06:57:17 -0000 From: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> To: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, Marcelo Araujo <araujo@freebsd.org>, fcp@freebsd.org, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Li-Wen Hsu <lwhsu@freebsd.org>, Kristof Provost <kp@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FCP 20190401-ci_policy: CI policy Message-ID: <201909020657.x826v5ot021581@slippy.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: <201908300201.x7U214qn086080@slippy.cwsent.com> References: <CAOfEmZgEbT7ni80vWehHm%2B4oPyH3m%2Brb0M_VyxHmNM3rkhyG1Q@mail.gmail.com> <201908291905.x7TJ5Bw8091371@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <CANCZdfoYNn9Xcyds_YbDXMLTrMdmTewvP_pK7FSDAPbDAeV6Lw@mail.gmail.com> <CANCZdfqagrUzv5wOawypu55Naxt9%2BAHLSege4ccEzrDkuFa9Mg@mail.gmail.com> <201908300201.x7U214qn086080@slippy.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <201908300201.x7U214qn086080@slippy.cwsent.com>, Cy Schubert writes: > In message <CANCZdfqagrUzv5wOawypu55Naxt9+AHLSege4ccEzrDkuFa9Mg@mail.gmail.c > om> > , Warner Losh writes: > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 3:26 PM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 1:05 PM Rodney W. Grimes < > > > freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > > > > > >> (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 searc > h > > >> 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 t > he > > >> > > > 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 a > nd > > >> > > > 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. > > >> > > > > > In the past, if someone had any follow on work at all in their tree, the > > reversion would be quite disruptive to that work. Most of the time it's a > > lot easier for me, with a lot less friction, to just fix issues that come > > up after the commit than to revert and prepare a new commit. Sure, it's > > possible, but it can destroy work in extreme cases. *THAT* is why I'm > > firmly in the camp of giving the original committer a shot at fixing things > > because it's much less disruptive to them, and generally we can get a fix > > into the tree faster. It reduces friction and encourages people to fix > > things quickly, imho, to hesitate a little on the revert. Especailly when > > the broken thing is the playstation loader on powerpc that can stay broken > > for the hour or six (or even days) it takes me to figure out why it > > broke... Often things away from the beaten path don't get discovered for > > days or weeks or months, and a reversion then can be extremely disruptive > > if there's other changes layered on top of the offending commit.... > > > > So the whole reversion issue is a lot more complicated than 'oh, it's still > > in svn'. There are real high costs associated with being too quick or > > liberal on the revert and those must be weighed against the damage the bad > > commit is doing.. > > I think that's why we need to define the problem first. > > The justification of the arbitrary numbers of minutes/hours isn't clear. > > I see there are possibly two trains of thought here which need to be > separated. > > 1. A general frustration by some. > > 2. A tool, a solution to a problem, I am unsure if it is related to #1. > > Why do I see this as such? > > The problem statement beings by saying that FreeBSD has a CI system that > performs compiles and runs automated tests. In the next paragraph it says > sometimes changes break compilation... > > This tells me that A) we have a solution which we discuss in B (the > problem). > > To my thinking we need to approach this from: A) we have a problem, maybe > backing it up with some stats some evidence of sorts. Then explore one or > preferably two solutions. Not to be hard on anyone and keeping my emotions > out of it, they way the problem statement is structured reads to me as a > solution looking for a problem. That's not to say we don't have a problem > (nor am I saying we do have a problem either). The problem statement is > structured to a foregone conclusion. > > I'd structure this by stating the problem (paragraph 2 and the bullet > points, though I think the problem needs to be explored a little more), > then discuss some of the timing issues regarding the fixing of the three > types of problems (compile, panic, and regressions, of which tests identify > regressions). > > I'm not saying that there is or isn't a problem but the problem statement > as written doesn't convince me there is a problem. It's leading me to a > conclusion. Thinking much of this week about how I approached this, it was wrong of me to structure this email in this way to convey I wasn't entirely convinced. This was critique and it should not have been. My email was offensive and for that I'm sorry. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> FreeBSD UNIX: <cy@FreeBSD.org> Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201909020657.x826v5ot021581>