From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Thu Aug 29 11:41:07 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@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 8329DD302F; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 11:41:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from kib.kiev.ua (kib.kiev.ua [IPv6:2001:470:d5e7:1::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46K1022Lh0z4XmM; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 11:41:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from tom.home (kib@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kib.kiev.ua (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x7TBevg5062817 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 29 Aug 2019 14:41:00 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 kib.kiev.ua x7TBevg5062817 Received: (from kostik@localhost) by tom.home (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x7TBevqY062816; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 14:40:57 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) X-Authentication-Warning: tom.home: kostik set sender to kostikbel@gmail.com using -f Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 14:40:57 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov To: Li-Wen Hsu Cc: fcp@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Hackers Subject: Re: FCP 20190401-ci_policy: CI policy Message-ID: <20190829114057.GZ71821@kib.kiev.ua> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,FREEMAIL_FROM, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on tom.home X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 46K1022Lh0z4XmM X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none); spf=softfail (mx1.freebsd.org: 2001:470:d5e7:1::1 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of kostikbel@gmail.com) smtp.mailfrom=kostikbel@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.93 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; HAS_XAW(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; R_SPF_SOFTFAIL(0.00)[~all:c]; IP_SCORE_FREEMAIL(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.93)[-0.928,0]; IP_SCORE(0.00)[ip: (-2.60), ipnet: 2001:470::/32(-4.45), asn: 6939(-3.10), country: US(-0.05)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:6939, ipnet:2001:470::/32, country:US]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; DMARC_POLICY_SOFTFAIL(0.10)[gmail.com : No valid SPF, No valid DKIM,none] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 11:41:07 -0000 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 ?