| 1 |
I think best of all would be the good discipline not to break the tree in |
| 2 |
the first place. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Is this something that Repoman could have caught? If no, should it in the |
| 5 |
future? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> On 03 Feb 2016 22:35, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 10 |
> > Am Dienstag, 2. Februar 2016, 02:33:30 schrieb Mike Frysinger: |
| 11 |
> > > > I took the liberty of doing (2) and reverted the commit. Not sure why |
| 12 |
> > > > this needs so much discussion; after all a broken tree is always |
| 13 |
> > > > suboptimal. |
| 14 |
> > > |
| 15 |
> > > unless things are on fire (which i don't think this was), i don't |
| 16 |
> > > generally clamor for 0-day fixes. if we can find a better fix in |
| 17 |
> > > a day or so, then i'm happy for that. i dislike repos with history |
| 18 |
> > > that is just a constant stream of land, revert, land, revert, land. |
| 19 |
> > > |
| 20 |
> > > not that i'm saying your revert was wrong ... just airing my |
| 21 |
> > > general personal preferences. |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > You're right of course... but there's one thing we have to keep in mind. |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > We're not running a project were releases are made from the vcs. The vcs |
| 26 |
> *is* |
| 27 |
> > the release... and whatever is out there gets pushed to users. |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> > This is why my personal preference is more to revert if I'm not sure |
| 30 |
> that the |
| 31 |
> > fix will happen soon. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> which is why you weigh the impact on users. how many people are actually |
| 34 |
> affected and for how long ? in this case, fairly sure no actual user saw |
| 35 |
> the failure on their system. |
| 36 |
> -mike |
| 37 |
> |
Archives