On Jun 21, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote: > On 6/21/16 8:34 AM, Lars Bergstrom wrote: >> If a backout lands as a `git revert` of the offending commit(s) I'm >> certainly less concerned, as that's annoying but not impossible for people >> to continue rebasing against. > > Right, that's how backouts land.
I'm still a bit worried about this unless the revert rate comes down pretty significantly for any shared branch between servo and gecko. According to what jgraham pointed me at on IRC (futurama.theautomatedtester.co.uk), it's not uncommon to have multiple backouts per day. We already lose contributors to Servo because they can't handle the hurdle of rebasing against a revert-free tree, and the idea of having people deal with rebasing over a commit, over its backout, and then back over it landing again has me a bit scared. We already rely on "jdm-carry" far too often. But we'll see how the proposals come out. The last I heard, we would be co-landing servo bits to the autolander branch, which was intended to be mostly backout-free. > No, absolutely not. Backouts due to test failure are done as an `hg revert`. > Sounds like something here got miscommunicated. :) This was probably my fault - identical words mapped to completely different things in git world versus mercurial world, and I should have attempted to clarify. Thanks for catching and drilling into this! - Lars _______________________________________________ dev-servo mailing list dev-servo@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-servo
