[webkit-dev] Frustrated at inconsiderate behavior

Daniel Cheng dcheng at chromium.org
Thu Jul 8 15:30:50 PDT 2010

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 14:55, Xan Lopez <xan at gnome.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow at chromium.org> wrote:
> > I think the point that's been made in this thread is that whatever policy
> > the commit queue uses should be in line with whatever policies all
> > committers should be using.  Otherwise you run into the problems Maciej
> > noted.
> I don't see this particular point being made by anyone in the thread.
> Who are you referring to? In any case I'm not quite sure I follow the
> logic of downgrading machines to a lesser standard of quality just
> because this is what humans tend to do.
> > If you think we should all follow such a policy, well that's an entirely
> > different topic.  And one that seems to keep coming up.  If you want to
> > raise it again, you should probably start by looking at the archives.
> Fair enough. My point was mostly about undoing the change to cq, not
> creating new rules for committers in general.

As someone who doesn't have committer access, I like the change to the CQ.
Before, I might have to wait 3 days for a patch to land since the CQ would
wait for all the core builders to be green. Meanwhile, committers see that
the CQ is behind and commit directly instead, so the tree stays on fire and
the CQ gets even further behind. I don't care if the commit queue behavior
is reverted, but if it is, it'd be really nice if committers tried to follow
the same commit policy as the bot.

> > J
> _______________________________________________
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20100708/2b1dc19d/attachment.html>

More information about the webkit-dev mailing list