<br>On Wednesday, July 9, 2014, Brady Eidson <<a href="mailto:beidson@apple.com">beidson@apple.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jul 9, 2014, at 1:43 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rniwa@webkit.org');" target="_blank">rniwa@webkit.org</a>> wrote:</div>
</blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>When the bug for a rollout is created, the original bug is automatically reopened.</div></div></div></div></blockquote>
<div><br></div></div>Which makes sense when a patch breaks something, whether the resolution is the author following up with a fix *or* the rollout committing.’</div>
<div><br></div><div>This is not a reason to avoid creating a rollout patch.</div><div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>Also, the bot doesn't provide enough information as to what's breaking because it only takes a single line of description on IRC.</div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>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.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>
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.</div>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Of course the bot can’t know, and of course it’s the rollout’er’s responsibility.<br><div><br></div></div><div>I believe the thing that has drawn this thread out was the request to “do this work manually before using the tool”</div>
<div><br></div><div>But I find the request to “do this manually instead of using the tool” bizarre because:</div><div><div><div><div><div>1 - The tool objectively meets most of the requirements, except for forcing a detailed description and URL to the failure.</div>
<div></div></div><div>2 - The tool objectively meets all of the requirements if the person using it provides the necessary data to the tool.</div></div><div></div></div><div>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.</div>
<div>4 - Relying on tools for common processes is a *good* thing.</div><div><br></div></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div>It's crucial that whoever reverting a patch provide a detailed explanation on what build or test failed and provide a hyper link to <a href="http://build.webkit.org/" target="_blank">build.webkit.org</a>. Otherwise the original author and the reviewer may have no idea what went wrong.</div>
</div></div></div></blockquote></div>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.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This can be done by manually looking up email addresses, emailing people, logging in to bugzilla, and typing a comment; Like you requested.</div><div><br></div><div>
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.</div><div><div><br></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>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.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div></div>
</div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><div><br></div><div>I don’t see the *need* either, because it already supports everything required.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div> If you want to enhance the tool to help this process, please go ahead but I'm not singing up to do that work.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>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.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div> Again, im not requesting anything new here. The consensus on webkit-dev has been to ping the author/reviewer on IRC or via email and comment in the original bug PRIOR to using webkitbot to start reverting the patch.</div>
<div><br></div><div>- R. Niwa</div><br><br>-- <br>- R. Niwa<br>