Comment #8 on issue 20799 by [email protected]: Revert bot on Automatic tree closure http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=20799
Ok, so I implemented a simple revert bot, and I am ready to commit, but I have second thoughts, So please let me know what you think. My implementation is basically "gcl revert XXX [--commit]", which does the revert to the revertbot server, send the review, and commit if --commit is specified. (This is basically implemented like a try job. "gcl try empty_cl --revision REV_TO_REVERT -- bot revertbot". revertbot reverts the change instead of syncing to it like the other try bots do. What is gives us is: 1. No need to worry about having an up to date tree on your machine 2. really fast 3. You wont commit locally modified files by accident 4. can be automated by the GateKeeper (i.e, GateKeeper sends the command without "-- commit", and once a sheriffs notices, he adds the --commit, or he can just LGTM the change... a poller would poll on the review until there is a LGTM, and then revert the change) 5. All commits are from "[email protected]" What would be hard to add 1. Append a reason why we want to revert to the description. It will just say "Revert XXX, Original description: XYZ", well, I guess someone could edit the description on revert before doing the --commit. The reason that I have second thoughts is that the main reason we wanted a revert bot was the reverting was a painful task, but with drover, this is not. drover is already taking care of point 1,2 and 3. It's crazy fast. It also lets you append any notes you want to the description. it's also really easy. You don't even need a checkout at all on your machine. So, that leaves us with #4 and #5. #4 is not even implemented right now, and might be more noisy then helpful. Most of the changes breaking the tree don't get reverted. Most of them because they did not need to be reverted... And it's as fast to revert locally with drover than to go to rietveld and do LGTM. #5 is the key point. It would be great if the changes we revert are not under our name. Is this enough good reasons to go ahead with the revert bot? (I'm not too worried about the current code, since it took less than 2 hours to write, but people will ask for features, and this would be another piece of infrastructure to maintain). Or should we just teach people how to use drover? We could even map "gcl revert XX" to "drover --revert XX". Let me know what you think, Thanks -- You received this message because you are listed in the owner or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue. You may adjust your issue notification preferences at: http://code.google.com/hosting/settings --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Automated mail from issue updates at http://crbug.com/ Subscription options: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-bugs -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
