openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Giffuni <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Proposal: How we should handle committer vetos and reverts in the future
Date Fri, 15 Feb 2013 01:49:52 GMT


----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: Rob Weir 
 

> Inviato: Giovedì 14 Febbraio 2013 17:31
> Oggetto: Proposal: How we should handle committer vetos and reverts in the future
> 
> Obviously the changes to Calc's POWER() function did not go well.
> 
> IMHO, we need to better respect the rare but powerful veto option that
> committers have:
> 
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#Veto
> 

Rare is the correct term. It seems to me like a last resort and that is likely
to require some discussion. If I change is obviously broken you don't issue
a veto, you simply discuss it. a veto is nowhere near being resolved within
minutes.


> When a committ is vetoed, it should be reverted quickly.   Remember, a
> veto is likely to come only after sufficient discussion on the list
> for one or more committers to think a veto is justified.  So if there
> was a just a simple misunderstanding then it would have already been
> taken care of.  So when a veto comes we need to treat it seriously and
> revert the change.
> 

The thing about the veto, and this happened today, is that there must
be a clear technical issue with it. We were far from that point early today.


> (Think of it this way:  If we treat a veto merely as "Let's discuss
> this some more on the list but not take any actions right now" then we
> don't really have a veto option. )
> 
> If the original coder is willing and able to revert quickly, then
> great.  But anyone, including the veto'er can do this.  It is not
> rocket science and does not require special knowledge:
> 

I disagree, this is extremely rude. Just like you don't put your
fingers into your neighbours dish, you have to give space to other
committers. Reverting someone elses commit is an insult, you are
saying: you completely screwed up your change is worthless you
shouldn't be a committer

Under no circumstance should a committer be intimidated or
made unconfortable about committing, furthermore, committing
early is good as it let's your code be tested. Of course if you are
being asked to revert all your changes you know you have to be careful.

> svn merge -c -XXXXXX (where XXXXXX is the revision number of the
> revision that introduced the change you want to revert)
> svn ci
> 
> That's it.
> 

Oh, and I would certainly expect more care when reverting if you
are not regularly working with the code: imagine trying to type a
letter in a bus while a strager is erasing what you write.

> It is very likely that the person whose changes were vetoed will not
> like the veto or the revert.  That is quite natural.

What we have to avoid specifically are reverts to reverts: SVN is not
the place to resolve issues: the mailing list is.

In the case of todays revert you should have waited as I could've
tried a quick fix. This is/was not an urgent issue and 99% of AOO
was fully operational without affecting anyone elses work..

It doesn't really matter anymore (specially if the bug is where I
think it is) but it is an experience to learn from.

Pedro.

Mime
View raw message