"Chad" innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote in message news:AANLkTi=o1xrb3RnwBK3hVC5fKi2Xi9n+CS5qBh6nWtwM@mail.gmail.com...
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
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
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.
+1 to everything Roan said and +1 to everything above.
-Chad
Definite +1 to this as well. I don't think that 'broken' commits should be immediately reverted **in the workflow we currently operate**; rather I think they should be given 12 or 24 hours (probably the latter) after notification to be fixed, and then a policy of prompt reversions. Reverting what might be a 99% successful change at the drop of a hat is the worst of all worlds. If we have a clear policy then the revert makes a subtle shift from "aggressive" to "standard procedure", and we also have an upper bound on the time trunk can remain broken.
--HM