On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 14:55, Xan Lopez <x...@gnome.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jor...@chromium.org> wrote: > > I think the point that's been made in this thread is that whatever policy > > the commit queue uses should be in line with whatever policies all > > committers should be using. Otherwise you run into the problems Maciej > > noted. > > I don't see this particular point being made by anyone in the thread. > Who are you referring to? In any case I'm not quite sure I follow the > logic of downgrading machines to a lesser standard of quality just > because this is what humans tend to do. > > > If you think we should all follow such a policy, well that's an entirely > > different topic. And one that seems to keep coming up. If you want to > > raise it again, you should probably start by looking at the archives. > > Fair enough. My point was mostly about undoing the change to cq, not > creating new rules for committers in general. >
As someone who doesn't have committer access, I like the change to the CQ. Before, I might have to wait 3 days for a patch to land since the CQ would wait for all the core builders to be green. Meanwhile, committers see that the CQ is behind and commit directly instead, so the tree stays on fire and the CQ gets even further behind. I don't care if the commit queue behavior is reverted, but if it is, it'd be really nice if committers tried to follow the same commit policy as the bot. > > > J > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
