Just to add one other point to this discussion:
I *hate* backouts. I don't just mean of my patches. I mean in
general. Whenever I come across a backout in a blame walk or a
bisect, it makes my life much more difficult. And I know I'm not
alone in this.
I thought the policy for autoland was pretty reasonable when it
was meant to use history rewriting to actually remove bad
changesets from change history, but I haven't been a fan of it
since that plan was abandoned.
If this new policy gives us open trees a slightly higher
percentage of the time at the expense of winding up with more
backouts for trivial ESLint bustages or one-line test fixes, I
don't think it's worth it. Having to wait for trees to re-open
is not a huge inconvenience to me. Dealing with mangled blame
is.
On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 03:28:45PM -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 6/19/18 9:04 AM, Sebastian Hengst wrote:
TL;DR: We would like to change the mozilla-inbound backout policy to
be like autoland’s.
This seems like a pretty reasonable change in general.
Is there a well-documented try syntax string which corresponds to
"these are the things that need to be green to avoid being backed
out"? Presumably that string is not "-p all -u all" because it should
exclude tier2 and lower things, but it's not entirely clear to me what
the autoland backout criteria are. I would assume we want developers
to do a try run with that syntax before pushing to inbound as needed.
-Boris
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
