Why not to use Gerrit patch set verification? -- was build failure in "[build GAL] arrows"

[d.ostrovsky at idaia.de]

On 17 June 2013, Matúš Kukan wrote:

> Indeed, sorry for this, there was missing dependency hopefully fixed  
> with [...]

it was broken for me too, while it was easy to fix with --without-galleries
option, i wonder why you don't use Gerrit?

Note:
mmeeks knows how to schedule a build now and is waiting that someone  
ask him to schedule a build ;-)
... and there are a lot of others on the IRC channel with the ACL too.

So every one has a choice now (until we have enough hardware to scale):

Scenario I:

1. upload a patch to Gerrit
2. ask for some one to schedule a build for it
Note: that step will be replaced with a simple click the "Schedule" button,
once we have a "Schedule" button on the Gerrit change screen (Current  
patch set action panel)
3. find out that it is broken on platform `foo` or `bar` without  
hurting other folks.
This is a tricky part here, but basically your change is on a virtual  
git branch in Gerrit,
and nobody cares that it is broken, compared to master
4. correct it
5. upload a new patch set to Gerrit
6. let re-schedule a new build for it (just click the "Schedule" button later)
7. submit the sane change to master

Scenario II:

1. commit your changes direct to master
2. break it
3. wait until other folks find it out and blame you
4. (hopefully) correct it (or may be not?)
5. write "Indeed i broke it, sorry for this" mail