Tier-1 Platforms
Brian Crowder
Are these to be considered Tier-1 platforms? How is that codified?
Thanks,
crowder
Mike Shaver
> 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.
Mike
Doug Turner
On Feb 19, 2009, at 9:58 AM, Mike Shaver wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Brian Crowder
> <THEK...@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.
Regards,
Doug
Mike Connor
On Feb 19, 2009, at 12:58 PM, Mike Shaver wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Brian Crowder
> <THEK...@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:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Supported_build_configurations
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
Christian Sejersen
>
> On Feb 19, 2009, at 12:58 PM, Mike Shaver wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Brian Crowder
>> <THEK...@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?
>>
Agree and perhaps we could add the names of all the port maintainers
of tier-2 platforms to that page as well?
/Christian