launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Deryck Hodge <deryck.hodge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Robert Collins
<robertc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think this is a very interesting experiment that merits consideration.
>
> I'll answer in more detail at a later date, but I wanted to raise two
> particular concerns now:
> 1) should either this or the optional-reviews experiment let a
> regression through it will be harder to clearly assess the cause.
> Perhaps thats an unfounded worry, but I'd rather not run two
> experiments both having roughly the same risk at the same time.
>

Sure, I can understand this concern.  I'm not sure it's hard to verify
this independent of each other.  If we track regressions regardless of
origin, then it seems simple to look and see if there's an unreviewed
MP or if the change would have been covered by a page/windmill test.
I don't think we should have the case of both because I didn't think
we could land UI changes unreviewed.

I do understand that it may be too much experiment at once, so if
others feel that way, I'll certainly defer.  I thought it might be
nice to run them together to see what kind of momentum we could build.
 My personal hope is that others find the momentum addictive and want
to maintain it. ;) :)  I don't want us to be reckless either but we
seem to have an overabundance of caution on Launchpad.

> 2) Whats the rollback strategy?

I see this as "re-enable the tests and go back to what we have now."
I feel like that is too simple an answer for your question, so maybe
I'm missing something that your concerned about?

Cheers,
deryck




-- 
Deryck Hodge
https://launchpad.net/~deryck
http://www.devurandom.org/