Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:13:11 +0000 From: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r228785 - in head/sys/dev/ath/ath_hal: ar5210 ar5211 Message-ID: <20111222101311.GA21964@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20111222092613.GC1676@garage.freebsd.pl> References: <201112211716.pBLHGhDH078507@svn.freebsd.org> <CAJ-Vmont2wOF=TkT1CmZt4Gp0iOc7ZYmfQpjW=8j1=F5DQGNwQ@mail.gmail.com> <201112211700.42772.jhb@freebsd.org> <20111221232754.GA51331@freebsd.org> <20111222092613.GC1676@garage.freebsd.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu Dec 22 11, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:27:54PM +0000, Alexander Best wrote: > > the commits should stay. after all this is HEAD. this way all developers > > running HEAD and with the appropriate ath hardware will test the changes. if > > dim@ really broke something, people will notice. > > > > the changes should *not* be MFC'ed. but if no one complains until 10.0-RELEASE, > > it's very unlikely he broke something. > > > > plus...does it make a different, if you test HEAD with the changes present or > > test HEAD with the changes integrated via patches? > > > > one way or the other you can test the changes and *if* something broke, the > > commits can be reverted. > > Is this a joke? Having HEAD as stable as possible is very important. > That's the only way to actually expect people (including developers > (including myself!)) to run HEAD on their laptops and less important > servers. Those people get upset as any other user if their systems stop > working, because untested changes are being committed. > > This is not to pick on Dimitry, but on those who actually believe that > it is ok to commit untested changes to HEAD. IT IS NOT. Maybe you are > just confused, because the place you are looking for seems to be > junkyard, but not HEAD, NEVER HEAD! > > BTW. This is a lesson we learned from 5-CURRENT. It was so unstable that > nobody wanted to run it, and so unstable it was even hard to test > changes on it. In turn it was becoming even more unstable, because > people kept committing more untested code. > > Please, do never, ever encourage evil like that or I'll turn on mean Pawel:) sure i understand your concerns and i completely agree that HEAD is not a playground for experimental changes. however dim@'s changes don't seem that disruptive. plus: reverting them and letting adrian@ test the patches on his own poses a cathedral-policy, whereas letting everybody who is running HEAD test them, seems more of a bazar-way. ;) cheers. alex > > -- > Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheelsystems.com > FreeBSD committer http://www.FreeBSD.org > Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! http://yomoli.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111222101311.GA21964>