<div dir="ltr">On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Simon Fraser <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:simon.fraser@apple.com" target="_blank">simon.fraser@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><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 class="h5"><br><div><div>On Jul 9, 2014, at 1:15 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <<a href="mailto:rniwa@webkit.org" target="_blank">rniwa@webkit.org</a>> wrote:</div>
<br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Brady Eidson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:beidson@apple.com" target="_blank">beidson@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><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"><br><div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jul 9, 2014, at 12:39 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <<a href="mailto:rniwa@webkit.org" target="_blank">rniwa@webkit.org</a>> wrote:</div>
<br><div><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Tim Horton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:timothy_horton@apple.com" target="_blank">timothy_horton@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><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"><br><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jul 9, 2014, at 12:10 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <<a href="mailto:mjs@apple.com" target="_blank">mjs@apple.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br><div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div>Could we teach webkitbot to do an appropriate notification with a waiting period? Either as part of rollout or add a new command to do it.</div></div></blockquote>
<div><br></div></div><div>It already does. The “waiting period” is defined by when the person who asked for the rollout sets the cq+ bit on the rollout patch.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't think creating a rollout patch should be the standard method of notifying the author/reviewer. We should be informing the author/reviewer ahead of the time.</div>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div>We already have an automated tool that quickly and easily notifies the author/reviewer, and that tool also happens to create the rollout patch.</div><div><br>
</div><div>As Tim points out, the rollout patch is never landed unless a reviewer (usually the person who created the rollout patch) sets the cq+ bit on it.</div><div><br></div><div>I don’t see what negative effect the mere existence of the rollout patch has, or why we should codify into the process that a rollout patch is *not* created when notifying the author/reviewer.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>When the bug for a rollout is created, the original bug is automatically reopened.</div><div><br></div><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><br></div><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><br></div></div></div><div>I think the person who does the rollout should provide sufficient info in the rollout bug to justify the rollout. I would prefer this to new policy that requires emailing the committer and reviewer.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, providing details in the bug would essentially email the author & the reviewer since they're auto cc'ed. I agree commenting on the Bugzilla is better so that others could follow.</div>
<div><br></div><div>- R. Niwa</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>