[squeak-dev] The Trunk: Graphics-pre.405.mcz

Chris Muller asqueaker at gmail.com
Wed Oct 17 22:07:59 UTC 2018


..."(memory, storage, network)"

I forgot CPU...
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:59 PM Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > the issue at stake here is the sanctity of the version history.
>
> "Sanctity."   If only you REALLY felt that way...    :(
>
> > It's untouchable. Think of it as immutable, append-only.
>
> Versions buried more than one or two deep are untouchable.  The top
> version(s) are not.  Reverting to a prior version IS a use-case.
> Deleting or moving a version IS a use-case.  There are UI commands to
> do them.
>
> > Unless some commit actually breaks the update stream or does some other kind of major damage to users systems, it is always preferable to revert that commit by a subsequent commit.
>
> You have a penchant for stating things as "facts" without offering any
> rationale whatsoever.  I could do something similar by only
> saying,"it's rarely preferable to revert a commit by a subsequent
> commit," with no basis.
>
> > Patrick did that, and nobody was adversely affected.
>
> No!  We've been through this but, since you're Bert...   you're
> conflating what you think is a "miniscule adverse effect" with "no
> adverse effect".   In truth the  __breadth__  of the impact is not
> miniscule:
>
>   - *Every client of every user* is adversely affected.
>   - *Every dimension of the hardware* is affected (memory, storage, network).
>   - And software -- the usability of the code repository and ancestral model.
>   - *Every future user* and their hard drives, memorys, and networks
> will also be adversely affected.
>   - These adverse effects are _permanent_,
>             even though they were conjured committed in only minutes
> from a whimsy.
>
> Growing the universe by 0.1% is a big deal that advsersely affects
> everybody whether they realize it or not.
>
> It was only by admin'ing, that nobody will be adversely affected.
>
> > Our rules about caution, restraint, doubt etc are to prevent these critical problems from occurring, not to keep the version history "pretty".
>
> Stop mischaracterizing the reason for maintaining a quality ancestry
> and code repository.
>
> > Also, I agree with Levente that your "inbox first" rule is not actually what we agreed upon. When we promote someone to core developer we trust them enough to judge whether to put stuff into trunk directly or not.
>
> Of course.  That's why it says "Guidelines" not "Rules".  This was
> written to instill a conservative approach to committing.  It really
> is a good approach for something you consider immutable.
>
> As I said before, "hopefully it won't happen very often, but if it
> does..."  Rest assured, I don't enjoy being this "bad guy"...   :(


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list