Check-in requires explicit approval on stable branches

[Daniel Veditz]

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

[Peter Weilbacher]

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.

[Daniel Veditz]

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.

[Gervase Markham]

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_Responsibilities
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