| 1 |
On 03 Feb 2016 22:35, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Dienstag, 2. Februar 2016, 02:33:30 schrieb Mike Frysinger: |
| 3 |
> > > I took the liberty of doing (2) and reverted the commit. Not sure why |
| 4 |
> > > this needs so much discussion; after all a broken tree is always |
| 5 |
> > > suboptimal. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > unless things are on fire (which i don't think this was), i don't |
| 8 |
> > generally clamor for 0-day fixes. if we can find a better fix in |
| 9 |
> > a day or so, then i'm happy for that. i dislike repos with history |
| 10 |
> > that is just a constant stream of land, revert, land, revert, land. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > not that i'm saying your revert was wrong ... just airing my |
| 13 |
> > general personal preferences. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> You're right of course... but there's one thing we have to keep in mind. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> We're not running a project were releases are made from the vcs. The vcs *is* |
| 18 |
> the release... and whatever is out there gets pushed to users. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> This is why my personal preference is more to revert if I'm not sure that the |
| 21 |
> fix will happen soon. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
which is why you weigh the impact on users. how many people are actually |
| 24 |
affected and for how long ? in this case, fairly sure no actual user saw |
| 25 |
the failure on their system. |
| 26 |
-mike |
Archives