On 04/05/2011 12:51 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com> writes: > >> My proposal would be: A patch may be reverted immediately by anyone >> with SVN write access if bootstrap is broken for more than 24 hours on >> any primary target. With proper notification to everyone involved, >> obviously. > > I agree. > > At the summit in October there was a discussion about this. I was on > the side of fast rollback for new failures. Would anybody care to > present the opposite view with regard to a patch like this? Can we > agree on fast rollback for bootstrap failures on x86/x86_64 GNU/Linux > systems?
For i686-linux bootstraps it's hard to argue against it, but in general I find it easier to cope with the occasional broken tree than with getting patches reverted when you can't reproduce the failure. A while ago ARM was broken for what seemed like a long time; didn't stop me from testing ARM patches. Another danger is getting a mob effect as in PR48403 (which I've also seen happen on other occasions) and getting the wrong set of patches reverted by trigger-happy people. To be blunt, there are some people on this list who tend to react panicky to bugs and skip proper analysis (as in this case); I don't want to encourage such folks to revert stuff willy-nilly. Sometimes you just need a bit of time and assistance from testers who actually see the problem to understand it. If there's a change in policy I'd at least make allowances for weekends. There's considerably less traffic on the mailing lists on Saturdays and Sundays, which suggests few people will be inconvenienced if the tree is broken during such a time. We also don't want everyone to only check things in on Mondays because they worry they'll come back after a weekend to find their stuff gone from the tree. Bernd
