[webkit-dev] Comment on the bug & email author/reviewer before reverting a patch

[Brady Eidson]

> On Jul 9, 2014, at 1:43 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa at webkit.org> wrote:

>> When the bug for a rollout is created, the original bug is automatically reopened.
> 
> Which makes sense when a patch breaks something, whether the resolution is the author following up with a fix *or* the rollout committing.’
> 
> This is not a reason to avoid creating a rollout patch.
> 
>> Also, the bot doesn't provide enough information as to what's breaking because it only takes a single line of description on IRC.
> 
> This seems like a complaint you have with the tool that can be fixed. This is not a reason to avoid creating a rollout patch.
> 
> This is not a complaint about the tool.  In practice, the bot can't figure out why a given patch needs to be rolled out.  It's the responsibility of the person who is rolling out the patch to give necessary details.

Of course the bot can’t know, and of course it’s the rollout’er’s responsibility.

I believe the thing that has drawn this thread out was the request to “do this work manually before using the tool”

But I find the request to “do this manually instead of using the tool” bizarre because:
1 - The tool objectively meets most of the requirements, except for forcing a detailed description and URL to the failure.
2 - The tool objectively meets all of the requirements if the person using it provides the necessary data to the tool.
3 - You requested that creating the rollout patch should *not* be done, even though nobody presented a reason why the mere existence of the rollout patch is a problem.
4 - Relying on tools for common processes is a *good* thing.

>> It's crucial that whoever reverting a patch provide a detailed explanation on what build or test failed and provide a hyper link to build.webkit.org.  Otherwise the original author and the reviewer may have no idea what went wrong.
> This statement seems at odds with how webkitbot (or an earlier form thereof) has been used countless times, since it has been reverting patches with only 1-line explanations for years without an uproar.
> 
> Not at all.  The point is that the person who requested to rollout a patch should provide the detailed explanation as to why the patch has to be rolled out, or exactly what got broken by the patch.

This can be done by manually looking up email addresses, emailing people, logging in to bugzilla, and typing a comment; Like you requested.

Or this can be done by using the tool we already have, but being aware to give the full context and a URL to breakage.

> If the premise of this email thread is “please provide a detailed description of why a patch is a candidate to be rolled out, including a link to the build/test failures”, then I wholeheartedly agree that webkitbot should be enhanced to allow and encourage this.
> 
> Giving a detailed description has already been a prerequisite to revert a patch.  I don't see why we need to enhance the tool to continue doing what we have always done.


I don’t see the *need* either, because it already supports everything required.

> If you want to enhance the tool to help this process, please go ahead but I'm not singing up to do that work.

I don’t expect you to.  I’m just trying to make it clear that I’m not going to start performing a checklist of manual work instead as originally requested; I intend to keep using the tool, but being more aware of giving the additional context.

 Brady

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20140709/423b2e67/attachment.html>