On 03/24/2011 08:00 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
- We need to set a clear policy for reverting problematic revisions
(fixme's) if they aren't addressed quickly enough (again, let's say within a week). Currently we largely leave them be, but I think we should go back to something more decisive and closer to the "keep trunk runnable, or else Brion kicks your ass" paradigm and make it a bit more formal this time
This made me realize something that's only tangentially related to the existing thread, namely that we're currently using the "fixme" status in Code Review for two different kinds of commits:
1. commits that are broken and need to be fixed or reverted ASAP, and 2. commits that do more or less work, but need some followup work.
An example of the first kind of commit would be something that throws PHP fatal errors on a substantial fraction of page views. An example of the second kind might be something as minor as forgetting to update RELEASE_NOTES.
Of course, there's also a wide range of shades of gray between these two extremes, such as changes that work most of the time but break some unusual setups or use cases. Still, I do think that most "fixme" commits can be fairly cleanly assigned to one or the other of these categories, simply by asking oneself "Can I run a usable wiki with this code as it is?"
I think it might be a good idea to split these two cases into separate states. My suggestion, off the top of my head, would be to leave "fixme" for the latter and add a new "broken" status for the former.
Of course, we really shouldn't expect to have any "broken" commits in CR at any given time, since they really should be reverted and marked as such by the first person who can do so. But I think that being able to mark a commit as broken and needing a revert, even if you can't revert it yourself just then for some reason (no time, no svn access, whatever), could be a good idea. It would also make it less likely for such commits to get lost (even temporarily) among the less urgent "fixme"s.
(Ps. I'd also like to note that I very much agree with what Roan wrote in general, and I'd very much like to see us going back to something like the system he proposed. +1.)