[jboss-dev] New Break the Build Policy - testsuite - discussion

[David M. Lloyd]

On 10/01/2008 10:35 AM, Adrian Brock wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 16:32 +0100, Kabir Khan wrote:
>>> On 10/01/2008 05:05 AM, Adrian Brock wrote:
>>>> A branch will be created for the broken build
>>>> before rolling back so the commit(s) can be fixed
>>>> and tested before re-merging.
>>> I vote against this, if my vote counts.  
> 
> What does voting have to do with it?
> You either have a persuasive, reasoned argument or you don't.
> "I don't like it" isn't an argument. :-)

Good thing I didn't make that argument then. :-)

>> Just roll it back, you  
>>> don't need a branch.  
> 
> The purpose of the branch is so that
> the person that broke the build can get help when they
> don't understand why it broke.
> Or when concurrent commits conflicted with each other.

Well I still think that isn't necessary.

Bob: Hey Fred, your commit 28374 broke the build, so I reverted it with 29102.
Fred: Ok.  I need help figuring this out, can you look at it for me?
Bob: Ok
(Bob types "svn up -r28374" and does some testing)
Bob: You forgot to frobnicate the blorgsnaffle.
Fred: Oh, ok.  I can fix that.
(Fred types "svn merge -r29102:29101 ." to undo the revert, or at his 
option, "svn merge -r28373:28374" to re-do their commit, and subsequently 
frobnicates the blorgsnaffle)
(Fred commits)
Fred: Ok, fixed in 29152.

> It's really upto the person that needs help with the commit
> whether they branch from the rolled back revision
> or create a branch from the most recent revision and
> re-apply their patch.

OK, I'd say it's up to the fixer to create the branch if needed.

> The important part is that don't just keep recommitting it
> to trunk or a stable branch 
> which potentially stops everybody else from working.

OK, I agree with this point.

>> The original committer can use "svn merge - 
>>> rXX:YY" to re-merge the change in their local tree.  We already have  
>>> an awful lot of branches as is.
> 
> You can't get somebody else to look at the problem if it only
> exists in your local tree.

Well they can easily do the same thing though.  Or roll back to the broken 
version.  The thing I want to emphasize is that the burden should be on the 
breaker, not the one who reverts the patch, to do the extra branching and 
testing and so on.

- DML