Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 14:40:57 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Li-Wen Hsu <lwhsu@freebsd.org> Cc: fcp@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FCP 20190401-ci_policy: CI policy Message-ID: <20190829114057.GZ71821@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <CAKBkRUwKKPKwRvUs00ja0%2BG9vCBB1pKhv6zBS-F-hb=pqMzSxQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKBkRUwKKPKwRvUs00ja0%2BG9vCBB1pKhv6zBS-F-hb=pqMzSxQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:29:58PM +0800, Li-Wen Hsu wrote: > It seems I was doing wrong that just changed the content of this FCP > to "feedback", but did not send to the right mailing lists. > > So I would like to make an announcement that the FCP > 20190401-ci_policy "CI policy": > > https://github.com/freebsd/fcp/blob/master/fcp-20190401-ci_policy.md > > is officially in "feedback" state to hopefully receive more comments > and suggestions, then we can move on for the next FCP state. What problem does the document tries to solve ? Or rather, do we really have the problem that it claims to solve ? >From my experience, normal peer pressure is enough to get things fixed quickly when it is possible to fix them quickly. If there is something more non-trivial, esp. in the tests and not the build, I am sure that a rule allowing anybody to do blind revert is much more harmful than having a test broken. More, I know that tests are of very low quality, which means that brokeness of the tests is not an indicator of anything until root cause is identified. Can we rely on the common sense of developers until there is indeed the visible problem ?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20190829114057.GZ71821>