On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 06:28:16AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
>     Date:        Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:43:18 +0000
>     From:        co...@sdf.org
>     Message-ID:  <20170725224318.ga3...@sdf.org>
>   | It's a minor inconvenience to fix a critical bug.
> Breaking builds is not a minor inconvenience, it can cause all
> progress to halt for developers who keep their tree up to date all
> the time.

I recommented the same action and in this case, I consider it "expose
the bugs in a way that are easy to find". No, the tree shouldn't be left
broken for any non-trivial amount of time, but we also don't have a good
way to do pre-commit testing for patches across all architectures
either. As such, I find *this* specific case an acceptable way of
exposing the breakage.

> While build breakages cannot always be avoided, you can generally
> expect someone to "fix" a breakage you have caused if you don't
> correct it within a few hours - where "fix" might mean reverting
> your change, or doing almost anything else to allow the build to
> succeed.

Keep in mind that even just waiting for a HEAD build typically takes a
couple of hours.


Reply via email to