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. Joerg