If you are doing revert, there is no need for a vote. Just commit the reverts in reverse order. (If somebody objects then they can veto the revert commits ;-) as long as they provide a valid technical reason)
The need for a vote is only if you want to do a reset. A reset makes it harder for others to update their local clones. We had exceptional issues on core and with the unit tests... and a lot more than 11 commits I think you're better off just applying the reverts now, no vote, and then work forward piecemeal from there. -Stephen On Wed 18 Jan 2017 at 05:35, Tibor Digana <[email protected]> wrote: > For me it is useful to still see the history because we want to be > > motivated and open branches which fix the reverted commits. > > There are only 11 commits to revert. Few days ago, unlike in Maven. > > So pure git revert <hash> is fine. > > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Fred Cooke <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > By revert do you mean reset --hard or keep the full history and rest the > > > contents then re commit and verify with a diff to that hash? > > > > > > Or did you mean revert, each commit, in reverse order, back to that base? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Tibor Digana <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > We have messed up Surefire codeline and we want to revert to [1] where > CI > > > > was stable. > > > > This enables us to continue with development. > > > > > > > > [1] 66bc4c0839ba11af7a8915930f76abf3cd58ee53 > > > > > > > > Vote open for at least 72 hours. > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 > > > > [ ] +0 > > > > [ ] -1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Cheers > > Tibor > > -- Sent from my phone
