On 2014-10-16, 3:56 PM, Dale Harvey wrote:
On 16 October 2014 20:55, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com <mailto:ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 2014-10-16, 1:52 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com <mailto:ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com> <mailto:ehsan.akhgari@gmail.__com <mailto:ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com>>> wrote: I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the person doing the backout has the time or the expertise to add a test for the broken functionality. Not the sheriff certainly, but I think if the regression is severe enough to warrant this action, the product owners (who are generally the ones who request the backout) can find the resources to make that happen. Who are the product owners exactly? Usually what happens in these cases is some discussion on IRC, followed by trying to ping the author/reviewer, followed by a backout either by a sheriff or another individual such as myself. There will be situations where this is unrealistically difficult for one reason or another. But I'd rather put the onus on the product owners to ask for that exception, and presumably offer human resources to help the developer update and test their patch. Again, I'm not sure who specifically you're referring to as the bearer of this responsibility. > If a team pulls this card, they should have a responsibility to help get the patch relanded in a timely manner. I disagree. If someone breaks Nightly on desktop for example to an extent where it cannot be used for dogfooding, and I back them out to help out our Nightly users and keep the testing product usable so that other regressions can be caught with it, why should I feel responsible for relanding their patch in a timely manner? The "someone" is the person that wrote the feature that was broken but no tests caught it
No, the "someone" is the person who wrote a patch which survived tests on our infra but broke a product in a way that made it undogfood-able. The specific functionality that they broke may be their own area, someone else's or some ancient piece of code that nobody really owns.
I believe the general idea is that as a peer / module owner / product owner, I have the responsibility to write tests that ensure my feature works, and if it is broken by upstream changes that landed because automation didnt find anything wrong with it, then its my responsibility to ensure that tests are written so it doesnt get regressed in the same way again and automation can catch it. Otherwise with no visibility I am putting the reponsibility onto every other upstream developer to hopefully not break my code without any context for them to even know when they have done so. This is summed up in the meme: http://mozillamemes.tumblr.com/post/26210699924/you-reap-what-you-sow
Sure. But you're just describing why tests are useful and an absolute necessity. :-) I think what Bobby was asking for is a much stronger ask that is not really attainable.
_______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
