Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
mozilla.dev.planning
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Check-in requires explicit approval on stable branches
Options
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
   4 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Daniel Veditz  
View profile  
 More options Oct 23 2009, 3:30 pm
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.planning, mozilla.dev.platform, mozilla.dev.apps.firefox
Followup-To: mozilla.dev.planning
From: Daniel Veditz <dved...@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:30:17 -0700
Local: Fri, Oct 23 2009 3:30 pm
Subject: Check-in requires explicit approval on stable branches
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Check-in rules differ on the various branches. On the security-release
branches (1.9.1 and earlier) check-in always requires explicit patch
approval -- always has, always will.

Newer branches in other stages of the development lifecycle have
different rules. Before you check in when you're checking tinderbox to
see if the tree is green you can read the tree rules for that branch up
at the top. The important bit can't get any bigger or redder, don't make
me add a blink tag.

If you use a tinderbox-summarizing service you still need to know the
tree rules: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Tree_Rules


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Peter Weilbacher  
View profile  
 More options Oct 25 2009, 3:28 am
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.planning
From: Peter Weilbacher <newss...@weilbacher.org>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:28:56 +0100
Local: Sun, Oct 25 2009 3:28 am
Subject: Re: Check-in requires explicit approval on stable branches
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 23/10/09 21:30, Daniel Veditz wrote:

> Check-in rules differ on the various branches. On the security-release
> branches (1.9.1 and earlier) check-in always requires explicit patch
> approval -- always has, always will.

> Newer branches in other stages of the development lifecycle have
> different rules. Before you check in when you're checking tinderbox to
> see if the tree is green you can read the tree rules for that branch up
> at the top. The important bit can't get any bigger or redder, don't make
> me add a blink tag.

> If you use a tinderbox-summarizing service you still need to know the
> tree rules: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Tree_Rules

The problem is that check-in rules also change depending on where one
looks for them. E.g. http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/Firefox3.5/ exempts
files not part of Firefox/XULRunner while the Tree_Rules page you point
out does not. The Tree_Rules page explicitely allows tests on 1.9.0 while
http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/Firefox3.0/ does not. But current practice
seems that tests are allowed on all branches, even though they are not
listed as allowed on Tree_Rules for the 1.9.1 and 1.9.2 branches.

But anyway, I wonder what this post is really about. Which checkins are
you complaining about?

    Peter.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Daniel Veditz  
View profile  
 More options Oct 25 2009, 6:36 pm
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.planning
From: Daniel Veditz <dved...@mozilla.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:36:53 -0700
Local: Sun, Oct 25 2009 6:36 pm
Subject: Re: Check-in requires explicit approval on stable branches
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 10/25/09 12:28 AM, Peter Weilbacher wrote:

> The problem is that check-in rules also change depending on where one
> looks for them.

If there's confusion please bring it to our attention so we can clear it
up (as you now have).

> But anyway, I wonder what this post is really about. Which checkins are
> you complaining about?

There have been a steady trickle of check-ins for branch blockers whose
patches were not yet approved. That is, following the 1.9.2 rules on the
older branches.

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Gervase Markham  
View profile  
 More options Oct 26 2009, 6:36 am
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.planning
From: Gervase Markham <g...@mozilla.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:36:05 +0000
Local: Mon, Oct 26 2009 6:36 am
Subject: Re: Check-in requires explicit approval on stable branches
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 23/10/09 20:30, Daniel Veditz wrote:

> If you use a tinderbox-summarizing service you still need to know the
> tree rules: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Tree_Rules

A recent hope of mine was, after the creation of:
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Developer_Guide/Committing_Rules_and...
that we could get to a place where people would need to read only that
document (for general rules and responsibilities) and the top of the
tinderbox (for tree-specific rules and responsibilities).

If we want to s!top of tinderbox!wiki.m.o/Tree_Rules!, that's cool, but
IMO we shouldn't have two sources of this information. Because they'll
just get out of sync.

Gerv


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google