Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 12:44:16 +0000 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, fcp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FCP 20190401-ci_policy: CI policy Message-ID: <20190830124416.GC19377@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <CAPyFy2CoOH2LTcOQ5mJw=TX1JWB9yBfxZMy%2BxMtAKvg4yCfGSw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAOfEmZgEbT7ni80vWehHm%2B4oPyH3m%2Brb0M_VyxHmNM3rkhyG1Q@mail.gmail.com> <201908291905.x7TJ5Bw8091371@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <CAPyFy2CoOH2LTcOQ5mJw=TX1JWB9yBfxZMy%2BxMtAKvg4yCfGSw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--vOmOzSkFvhd7u8Ms Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 08:05:06PM -0400, Ed Maste wrote: > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 15:05, Rodney W. Grimes > <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > > > > 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!. >=20 > Let me echo Rod here. I'm also very happy that this statement was made > by one of the original FreeBSD committers. >=20 > Reverting a change is not an insult, not a punishment, not something > bad - it's simply an acknowledgement that some aspect of the change > didn't meet expectations. We should be considerably more willing to revert changes that break things. I agree with Warner that it's worth pinging the developer in question, but if they don't respond in in a couple hours, I see no value in waiting further. At that point any loss of productivity is on them and they have already wasted considerable productivity for other committers. All that being said, the LLVM project's aggressive use of reverts is sometimes enormously costly to downstreams with large changes[0] and we should avoid swinging too far toward reverts. The issue comes about when a non-trivial patch conflicts with a local change. When such a patch is reverted that's another conflict and sometimes you end up making/unmaking the same fixes multiple times when a change causes problems in an environment that developer can't test directly. Some balance is required, but I think we should be considerably more willing to revert changes where a fix isn't immediately available. -- Brooks [0] On the CHERI project we're almost certainly the largest public downstream for LLVM to the point that they validated the git monorepo migration tools on our tree(s). --vOmOzSkFvhd7u8Ms Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJdaRofAAoJEKzQXbSebgfA7xwH/im4SHdyaGqJtJLmCRu2/HF4 3NyTBv91b3pPBYaukl61xFmMwjyZBeQS9OnxozVhyw5fpGjKCHPNEQzoaUzjEMHm 2iL3ag57Dj0hyNuVgJWyPSauSjozLBOMSrOLJLzs/VWq1R/+325YMUJ6nRxnNewF YhnOQiErnlFalWUB2QQ3Gg73sSaXdagLTE+EOlCNuFSBQ+ead3A6mOURspGKSj/u 5LHi6Jr4mOVv9hg2Qgt+sN25WbgGW0o/2UDGY7iNDkEJk0CkzYXN3o53V6pabQHJ 9VfTT0V3sf4xf61Bq/Bp0jM0cjBt0FoduoiJab3e9oM+dRRnUf910rpHf3w5S1s= =9/Vl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vOmOzSkFvhd7u8Ms--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20190830124416.GC19377>