On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Brian Crowder <THEKre...@gmail.com> wrote: > The two primary mobile platforms, these days, are MaeMo and WinCE. > Are these to be considered Tier-1 platforms? How is that codified?
T1 platforms are those listed on the "Firefox" tinderbox; that's the codification that matters most to me.
I would personally be loath to add MaeMo or WinCE until we have at least try coverage for them, since I don't really think it's a healthy move to have people backing out for failures that they aren't likely to be able to reproduce, or verify fixes against.
This probably needs unit-tests-via-try as well, since otherwise I really don't know what I would tell a developer who tripped some failure on WinCE only. Neither "keep checking in new stuff and hope" nor "back out your work until someone with a WinCE device is around" feel satisfying.
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Brian Crowder > <THEKre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The two primary mobile platforms, these days, are MaeMo and WinCE. >> Are these to be considered Tier-1 platforms? How is that codified?
> T1 platforms are those listed on the "Firefox" tinderbox; that's the > codification that matters most to me.
> I would personally be loath to add MaeMo or WinCE until we have at > least try coverage for them, since I don't really think it's a healthy > move to have people backing out for failures that they aren't likely > to be able to reproduce, or verify fixes against.
> This probably needs unit-tests-via-try as well, since otherwise I > really don't know what I would tell a developer who tripped some > failure on WinCE only. Neither "keep checking in new stuff and hope" > nor "back out your work until someone with a WinCE device is around" > feel satisfying.
I agree with Mike and do not think Mobile should be on the Firefox tinderbox until we have similar tests that the desktop has. At the very least, a try-server!
If this is called tier-2, fine, but I think calling it "Mobile" is more correct as we will probably have our own tiers. For example, Mobile cares right now about Windows Mobile and Maemo. However Symbian is being brought up, and we will start caring about that. There is the the plain Windows CE (not windows mobile) that we will care about. We have a QT port that we aren't active on, but it would be nice to know if it still works. The people that are working on Mobile will need to prioritize these and using a tiered mobile feels natural.
Module Owners and their peers have been helpful in their consideration of Mobile when reviewing changes. A number of times I have been asked, either in bugs or on iRC, if something would work or not on Windows or Maemo. So, I think we are doing the right things here.
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Brian Crowder > <THEKre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The two primary mobile platforms, these days, are MaeMo and WinCE. >> Are these to be considered Tier-1 platforms? How is that codified?
> T1 platforms are those listed on the "Firefox" tinderbox; that's the > codification that matters most to me.
> I would personally be loath to add MaeMo or WinCE until we have at > least try coverage for them, since I don't really think it's a healthy > move to have people backing out for failures that they aren't likely > to be able to reproduce, or verify fixes against.
> This probably needs unit-tests-via-try as well, since otherwise I > really don't know what I would tell a developer who tripped some > failure on WinCE only. Neither "keep checking in new stuff and hope" > nor "back out your work until someone with a WinCE device is around" > feel satisfying.
I agree with all of the above, but I think they should be made tier-2 immediately instead of "unspecified", based on the descriptions here:
While I'd like to see the mobile platforms get to tier-1 status eventually, the mobile platforms are a very different context, and putting all developers on hook for these platforms directly, instead of being expected to work with a platform maintainer, like we do with all of the other tier 2 platforms, seems heavily premature. When we have equivalent test/try coverage, and we've got some better idea of how the learning curve for fixing bustage/regressions looks for mobile platforms, we can figure out whether it makes sense to move it up.
To be clear, tier 2 means "we don't close the tree, but if you break it, you should be talking to the platform maintainers to resolve the issue." That seems fair, and we should be able to identify platform maintainers (i.e. I guess wolfe for WinCE?) to be cced/asked about issues or tinderbox failures.
> On Feb 19, 2009, at 12:58 PM, Mike Shaver wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Brian Crowder >> <THEKre...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> The two primary mobile platforms, these days, are MaeMo and WinCE. >>> Are these to be considered Tier-1 platforms? How is that codified?
>> T1 platforms are those listed on the "Firefox" tinderbox; that's the >> codification that matters most to me.
>> I would personally be loath to add MaeMo or WinCE until we have at >> least try coverage for them, since I don't really think it's a >> healthy >> move to have people backing out for failures that they aren't likely >> to be able to reproduce, or verify fixes against.
>> This probably needs unit-tests-via-try as well, since otherwise I >> really don't know what I would tell a developer who tripped some >> failure on WinCE only. Neither "keep checking in new stuff and hope" >> nor "back out your work until someone with a WinCE device is around" >> feel satisfying.
> I agree with all of the above, but I think they should be made > tier-2 immediately instead of "unspecified", based on the > descriptions here:
> While I'd like to see the mobile platforms get to tier-1 status > eventually, the mobile platforms are a very different context, and > putting all developers on hook for these platforms directly, instead > of being expected to work with a platform maintainer, like we do > with all of the other tier 2 platforms, seems heavily premature. > When we have equivalent test/try coverage, and we've got some better > idea of how the learning curve for fixing bustage/regressions looks > for mobile platforms, we can figure out whether it makes sense to > move it up.
> To be clear, tier 2 means "we don't close the tree, but if you break > it, you should be talking to the platform maintainers to resolve the > issue." That seems fair, and we should be able to identify platform > maintainers (i.e. I guess wolfe for WinCE?) to be cced/asked about > issues or tinderbox failures.
> -- Mike
Agree and perhaps we could add the names of all the port maintainers of tier-2 platforms to that page as well?
