On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hyrum K Wright [mailto:hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org]
>> Sent: woensdag 18 mei 2011 1:11
>> To: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
>> Cc: commits_at_subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1104610 - in
>> /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc: props.c wc_db.c wc_db.h
>>
>> I understand the desire to get the buildbots green again, and I'm
>> sorry these revisions which I committed broke the bots, but a little
>> patience might have been useful here. We have a long tradition of
>> allowing folks to attempt to fix problems, rather than reverting their
>> commits without consultation. I kinda wish you'd have given me
>> another 12 hours to attempt to fix it, rather than reverting.
>
> We also have the generic rule that any committer (full or partial) may
> revert something that makes it impossible for them to do further
> development. (See hacking)
No, we have a policy that people can revert changes to the *build
system* which prevent productivity:
"To prevent loss of productivity, any committer (full or partial) can
immediately revert any build system change that breaks their ability
to effectively do development on their platform of choice, as a matter
of ordinary routing, without fear of accusations of an over-reaction."
(From: http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/building.html#configury
)
I'm not trying to play process obstructionist, just noting that a mail
mentioning the breakage and indicating your intent to revert would
have been a nice consideration.
> And tomorrow morning the asf repository will be readonly for quite some
> time, so waiting till after that will probably cause more delays.
>
> Besides, you just mailed that you weren't going to fix this issue... :-)
I guess I should have been more clear: I'm happy to fix my own
breakage to the buildbots. When indicating I was moving on to other
things, I didn't know I'd broken the test world.
> Somehow the test that should have picked up the original failure is broken.
> It thinks that no output at all for a recursive proplist is ok.
>
> So two different bugs (the local changes one; and the base-deleted one)
> together kept the prop_tests.py 15 test succeeding.
Has this bug in the test suite been fixed? If not, I suppose that's a
place to start...
-Hyrum
Received on 2011-05-18 11:11:04 CEST