On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org wrote:
I'm not going to revert patches, that would make a mess of the history. Reverting is a serious event and should happen only when a change is completely wrong, not when it happens to not be 100% correct or to have some unwanted side effect.
The rpct4 change seems seriously wrong, offhand, given how widespread the breakage it sometimes causes is. (A lot of tests seemed to think that the C:\ drive didn't exist.)
There are already many checks done before commit, and adding more checks like you do is of course a very good idea. All together, that should ensure that no committed patch can cause dramatic breakage. But there will always be minor breakages, and flaky tests, and race conditions, and buildbot must be able to deal with them gracefully, without requiring me to scramble a revert.
It's kind of hard to gracefully handle it when dozens of tests fail randomly because of a bad commit.
Mercifully, this kind of breakage doesn't happen often, so I guess I'm ok with doing local reverts when it does. I'm just worried that I won't be able to get to it quickly enough, and the resulting barrage of test failures will turn people off. - Dan