"Chad" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Ilmari Karonen <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On 03/24/2011 08:00 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote: >>> * We need to set a clear policy for reverting problematic revisions >>> (fixme's) if they aren't addressed quickly enough (again, let's say >>> within a week). Currently we largely leave them be, but I think we >>> should go back to something more decisive and closer to the "keep >>> trunk runnable, or else Brion kicks your ass" paradigm and make it a >>> bit more formal this time
>> I think it might be a good idea to split these two cases into separate >> states. My suggestion, off the top of my head, would be to leave >> "fixme" for the latter and add a new "broken" status for the former. >> > > +1 to everything Roan said and +1 to everything above. > > -Chad > Definite +1 to this as well. I don't think that 'broken' commits should be immediately reverted **in the workflow we currently operate**; rather I think they should be given 12 or 24 hours (probably the latter) after notification to be fixed, and then a policy of prompt reversions. Reverting what might be a 99% successful change at the drop of a hat is the worst of all worlds. If we have a clear policy then the revert makes a subtle shift from "aggressive" to "standard procedure", and we also have an upper bound on the time trunk can remain broken. --HM _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
