heh… I have to say: I do not contribute to osvm other than PRs (never directly), so I always expect having a green build to merge. Also, I always have first a green build in my own build process (who builds all sources from scratch and tests the resulting VM executing all tests in Pharo), so when I do the PR, I tested my sources.<br>
The problem we had with Pharo was because of two colliding issues (non related):<br>
<br>
- server destination for deploy changed, and then keys became immediately wrong<br>
- travis updated his server and didn’t included by default anymore libcurl for i386<br>
<br>
this escapes the “you break it, you fix it” <br>
<br>
I agree no contribution should be accepted if it does not passes through a PR (and CI needs to pass), but that’s actually hard to do with current process: today VMMaker monticello is the “development branch” and you cannot prepare PRs with that… you need branch before generate sources, then commit into branch and then PR. I would recommend to use that approach but is more work than just commit so hard to adopt. <br>
<br>
Esteban<br>
<br>
&gt; On 27 Dec 2017, at 00:18, Ben Coman &lt;notifications@github.com&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; A side-comment from the peanut gallery...<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; On 16 November 2017 at 03:47, Fabio Niephaus &lt;notifications@github.com&gt;<br>
&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; &gt; It is indeed. I was hoping we do &quot;you break it, you fix it&quot;, but that<br>
&gt; &gt; didn&#39;t work apparently.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; Taking the path of least resistance is human nature. There are varying<br>
&gt; levels of &quot;too busy to fix that right now.&quot; Introducing the merge-barrier<br>
&gt; shifts that balance point to encourage the idealistic behaviour of fixing<br>
&gt; errors asap.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; To mitigate concerns of delayed merges..<br>
&gt; If these barriers sometimes get in the way of something critical, it should<br>
&gt; be okay to temporarily disable them. But at least the default encourages<br>
&gt; the ideal behaviour and bypassing that require explicit action rather than<br>
&gt; happening accidentally.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; &gt; We could force the Cog branch to always be green by only allowing changes<br>
&gt; &gt; that previously have been proven to pass, but then it takes longer to get<br>
&gt; &gt; things merged. Not sure if we want that...<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; Delayed merges are a fairly generic concern. It would be good to expose<br>
&gt; some detail from everyone concerned that enabling the following will<br>
&gt; impeded their workflow...<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; https://help.github.com/assets/images/help/repository/protecting-branch-loose-status.png<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; That is...<br>
&gt; What period of delay are you concerned about?<br>
&gt; How often do you you think this would be a problem?<br>
&gt; Is the problem the delay in merging-code, or the delay in getting the new<br>
&gt; binary to run?<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; cheers -ben<br>
&gt; —<br>
&gt; You are receiving this because you were mentioned.<br>
&gt; Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub &lt;https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/issues/172#issuecomment-354023920&gt;, or mute the thread &lt;https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAfWXhk8Fm6tVkwyY5Q_BvaSHcwL6Wb2ks5tEX6_gaJpZM4QetkG&gt;.<br>
&gt; <br>
<br>


<p style="font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">&mdash;<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href="https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/issues/172#issuecomment-354101924">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a href="https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AhLyW4ZPKi4YNXANQVv_dPIetjdNNnkyks5tEi1_gaJpZM4QetkG">mute the thread</a>.<img alt="" height="1" src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AhLyW9bd3zyZV4r5cR7JRYGf6ZJaqMrEks5tEi1_gaJpZM4QetkG.gif" width="1" /></p>
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/EmailMessage">
<div itemprop="action" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ViewAction">
  <link itemprop="url" href="https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/issues/172#issuecomment-354101924"></link>
  <meta itemprop="name" content="View Issue"></meta>
</div>
<meta itemprop="description" content="View this Issue on GitHub"></meta>
</div>

<script type="application/json" data-scope="inboxmarkup">{"api_version":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name":"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm","title":"OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/17495839/a5054eac-5d88-11e6-95fc-7290892c7bb5.png","avatar_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/15842166/7c72db34-2c0b-11e6-9aed-b52498112777.png","action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm"}},"updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@estebanlm in #172: heh… I have to say: I do not contribute to osvm other than PRs (never directly), so I always expect having a green build to merge. Also, I always have first a green build in my own build process (who builds all sources from scratch and tests the resulting VM executing all tests in Pharo), so when I do the PR, I tested my sources.\nThe problem we had with Pharo was because of two colliding issues (non related):\n\n- server destination for deploy changed, and then keys became immediately wrong\n- travis updated his server and didn’t included by default anymore libcurl for i386\n\nthis escapes the “you break it, you fix it” \n\nI agree no contribution should be accepted if it does not passes through a PR (and CI needs to pass), but that’s actually hard to do with current process: today VMMaker monticello is the “development branch” and you cannot prepare PRs with that… you need branch before generate sources, then commit into branch and then PR. I would recommend to use that approach but is more work than just commit so hard to adopt. \n\nEsteban\n\n\u003e On 27 Dec 2017, at 00:18, Ben Coman \u003cnotifications@github.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e A side-comment from the peanut gallery...\n\u003e \n\u003e On 16 November 2017 at 03:47, Fabio Niephaus \u003cnotifications@github.com\u003e\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e It is indeed. I was hoping we do \"you break it, you fix it\", but that\n\u003e \u003e didn't work apparently.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e Taking the path of least resistance is human nature. There are varying\n\u003e levels of \"too busy to fix that right now.\" Introducing the merge-barrier\n\u003e shifts that balance point to encourage the idealistic behaviour of fixing\n\u003e errors asap.\n\u003e \n\u003e To mitigate concerns of delayed merges..\n\u003e If these barriers sometimes get in the way of something critical, it should\n\u003e be okay to temporarily disable them. But at least the default encourages\n\u003e the ideal behaviour and bypassing that require explicit action rather than\n\u003e happening accidentally.\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e We could force the Cog branch to always be green by only allowing changes\n\u003e \u003e that previously have been proven to pass, but then it takes longer to get\n\u003e \u003e things merged. Not sure if we want that...\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e Delayed merges are a fairly generic concern. It would be good to expose\n\u003e some detail from everyone concerned that enabling the following will\n\u003e impeded their workflow...\n\u003e \n\u003e https://help.github.com/assets/images/help/repository/protecting-branch-loose-status.png\n\u003e \n\u003e That is...\n\u003e What period of delay are you concerned about?\n\u003e How often do you you think this would be a problem?\n\u003e Is the problem the delay in merging-code, or the delay in getting the new\n\u003e binary to run?\n\u003e \n\u003e cheers -ben\n\u003e —\n\u003e You are receiving this because you were mentioned.\n\u003e Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub \u003chttps://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/issues/172#issuecomment-354023920\u003e, or mute the thread \u003chttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAfWXhk8Fm6tVkwyY5Q_BvaSHcwL6Wb2ks5tEX6_gaJpZM4QetkG\u003e.\n\u003e \n\n"}],"action":{"name":"View Issue","url":"https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/issues/172#issuecomment-354101924"}}}</script>