Moving to mobile-l. <span></span><br><br>On Friday, June 12, 2015, Sam Smith &lt;<a href="mailto:samsmith@wikimedia.org">samsmith@wikimedia.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hey web slingers,<div><br></div><div>If there is a regression introduced by a patch, then please revert that patch as soon as you&#39;ve identified it and let the team know via Phabricator, email, or both. Reverting the commit will often be cheaper to do than fixing the regression in a follow-on patch, but there&#39;ll undoubtedly be exceptions, which we&#39;ll deal with (and learn from) as a team.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Fixing the regression in a follow-on patch means that:</div><div><ul><li><i>master won&#39;t be deployable</i> until the patch has been reviewed, tested, and merged, which should be communicated to the Release Engineering team<br></li><li>reviewers might have to drop what they&#39;re working on in order to get it reviewed</li><ul><li>what if the original patch was lower priority?</li><li>we should be cognisant of the cost of context switching</li></ul><li>the commit history will be dirty</li></ul></div><div><div><i>Master should always be depoyable.</i></div></div><div><br></div><div>–Sam</div></div>
</blockquote>