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.
> 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.
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?
> 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.
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.
