Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Module Ownership and Peers - Handling the Case Where It's Automation Only Ownership for an Area, Not the Whole Area
38 views
Skip to first unread message
jsmith....@gmail.com
Apr 4, 2013, 2:57:45 PM4/4/13
to
Hi Everyone,
One issue we're running into right now with WebRTC code management is the fact that Henrik and I can effectively do reviews on automation behind the WebRTC APIs, but can't do reviews on the underlying core code in that area. However, in the module ownership definition for WebRTC right now, our review wouldn't sufficient right now to land tests per what's defined in the WebRTC module, even though there's acceptance from the team that we could provide the "checkmark" to allow something to land on the tests side.
How should we handle this per module ownership structure? Should I nominate myself and Henrik as peers for automated tests within the WebRTC module only? Or is there some other process I need to follow here?
Sincerely,
Jason Smith
One issue we're running into right now with WebRTC code management is the fact that Henrik and I can effectively do reviews on automation behind the WebRTC APIs, but can't do reviews on the underlying core code in that area. However, in the module ownership definition for WebRTC right now, our review wouldn't sufficient right now to land tests per what's defined in the WebRTC module, even though there's acceptance from the team that we could provide the "checkmark" to allow something to land on the tests side.
How should we handle this per module ownership structure? Should I nominate myself and Henrik as peers for automated tests within the WebRTC module only? Or is there some other process I need to follow here?
Sincerely,
Jason Smith
Benjamin Smedberg
Apr 4, 2013, 3:16:49 PM4/4/13
to jsmith....@gmail.com, gover...@lists.mozilla.org
On 4/4/2013 2:57 PM, jsmith....@gmail.com wrote:
> However, in the module ownership definition for WebRTC right now, our review wouldn't sufficient right now to land tests per what's defined in the WebRTC module, even though there's acceptance from the team that we could provide the "checkmark" to allow something to land on the tests side.
If the module owner is delegating authority for you to review tests,
> However, in the module ownership definition for WebRTC right now, our review wouldn't sufficient right now to land tests per what's defined in the WebRTC module, even though there's acceptance from the team that we could provide the "checkmark" to allow something to land on the tests side.
they should just mark you as a peer.
--BDS
Mike Connor
Apr 4, 2013, 3:18:32 PM4/4/13
to jsmith....@gmail.com, gover...@lists.mozilla.org
This case sounds like it would be best handled with a sub-module, which is something the module owner (rjesup) can create to effectively govern a subset of a module. Creation and ownership of sub-modules are entirely within the module owner's discretion as part of the general principle that the module may delegate reviews and responsibility by whatever criteria they deem appropriate.
-- Mike
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
-- Mike
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
Randell Jesup
Apr 10, 2013, 8:04:31 AM4/10/13
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
>This case sounds like it would be best handled with a sub-module, which is
>something the module owner (rjesup) can create to effectively govern a
>subset of a module. Creation and ownership of sub-modules are entirely
>within the module owner's discretion as part of the general principle that
>the module may delegate reviews and responsibility by whatever criteria
>they deem appropriate.
What's the correct way to indicate this in the Modules wiki pages? (An
>something the module owner (rjesup) can create to effectively govern a
>subset of a module. Creation and ownership of sub-modules are entirely
>within the module owner's discretion as part of the general principle that
>the module may delegate reviews and responsibility by whatever criteria
>they deem appropriate.
existing sub-module to point at would be fine.)
--
Randell Jesup, Mozilla Corp
remove ".news" for personal email
Mitchell Baker
May 17, 2013, 7:41:39 AM5/17/13
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On 4/10/13 2:04 PM, Randell Jesup wrote:
>
> What's the correct way to indicate this in the Modules wiki pages? (An
> existing sub-module to point at would be fine.)
>
Each of the links below includes sub-modules:
>
> What's the correct way to indicate this in the Modules wiki pages? (An
> existing sub-module to point at would be fine.)
>
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/FirefoxOS
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/Activities
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/Thunderbird
Mitchell
0 new messages