This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: PATCH to optimize two Channels methods

Tom Tromey wrote:

As far as I know, libgcj falls under the same rules as the rest of the
compiler, see  In particular, 48
hours after a regression is introduced, you may back out the patch.

Only under certain conditions, including that it's an "important" target, and that "two people wih write priviliges" determine that "the best course of action is to revert the patch."

But quibbling over rules is counter-productive.  Backing out a patch
without the patcher's agreement is very seldom done.  Suggesting a
patch be backed-out is touchy, too.  And you need to distinguish
between a patch that is wrong (it's the wrong fix or does more harm
than good), and a patch that is incomplete (it makes a real improvement
or fixes real problems in a reasonsable manner yet causes regressions
that appear to be fixable).  Prematurely talking about reverting the
latter is annoying.  First try to engage in a dialogue about what the
problem might be, how easy it might be to fix, and only if it determined
that the fix is too difficult or remote then it is time to discuss
if we're better off with or without the patch.

"No regressions" is a guideline, not an absolute.  We even break
platforms when they're obsolete and no-one is willing to maintain them.
(Of course embedded arm is not in this category.)

I apologize for not responding to Richard's problem, but it's inevitable
that sometimes I will drop an email.  Talking about backing out my
patches because I haven't responded to one message makes me defensive
and annoyed.
	--Per Bothner

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]