From: Johnathan Nightingale <john...@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:59:41 -0400
Local: Tues, Apr 12 2011 5:59 pm
Subject: Aurora/Beta Approval flags (Was: Managing approvals under rapid release)
On 2011-04-12, at 5:56 PM, Johnathan Nightingale wrote:
> In today's Aurora meeting, we agreed that the mozilla-aurora tree (implicitly mozilla-beta as well) should default to APPROVAL REQUIRED for checkins. This brought up an obvious question:FOR QUESTION 1: I propose that we create an approval flag per channel (i.e., approval-aurora: ?,-,+ and approval-beta: ?,-,+), rather than creating one approval flag per version (i.e. approval5, approval6, approval7...).
> Q: How do we request/grant approvals?
> I offered to start a thread on determining this. I think there are actually 3 questions hidden inside it:
> 1) What should the bugzilla mechanism be?
Making the flag channel-specific instead of version-specific allows us to:
* easily clear all missed approvals at each merge
One downside of per-channel flags over per-version ones is that when merging from aurora to beta, missed approvals need to be re-assessed instead of implicitly carrying forward. I don't think this is a bad thing, certainly not one that outweighs the positives.
The principal upsides of a per-version flag, as far as I can tell, are the similarity to what we've done historically (approval2.0, &c) and the parity between approval and tracking flags. I don't personally feel that those outweigh the advantages of per-channel, but would like to hear where others come down.
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.