Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
mozilla.dev.planning
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Aurora/Beta Approval flags (Was: Managing approvals under rapid release)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Johnathan Nightingale  
View profile  
 More options Apr 12 2011, 5:59 pm
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.planning
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)
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
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:

>     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?
>     2) Who grants approvals and how often?
>     3) What do we do in the meantime?

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...).

Making the flag channel-specific instead of version-specific allows us to:

* easily clear all missed approvals at each merge
* triage aurora-level approvals with a different risk calculus than beta-level approvals
* build tools to track approvals which don't need updating every 6 weeks
* avoid making more noise about version numbers than necessary
* avoid creating a new disposable flag every 6 weeks

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.

Johnathan

---
Johnathan Nightingale
Director of Firefox Engineering
john...@mozilla.com


 
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.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google