On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 03:11:36PM -0400, Andrew Halberstadt wrote: > On 21/04/15 03:02 PM, Aaron Klotz wrote: > >On 4/21/2015 12:50 PM, Andrew Halberstadt wrote: > >> > >>This could be effective, but if not implemented with care it could > >>also be very de-motivating, especially for a well-intentioned > >>contributor. > > > >Is this really an issue though, given the time and effort required to > >earn sufficient commit access to push to inbound? > > It's the patch author that is on the hook for bustage, not the pusher. > Any contributor can land a patch on inbound by setting > 'checkin-needed' on the bug. > > But contributors aside, it could be de-motivating for employees too. > If I break inbound, I already feel really bad about it.. no need to > rub it in my face :). If there are employees who are blatantly abusing > inbound and don't seem to care about other people's time, perhaps a > private e-mail to them and/or their manager would be a more > appropriate response.
I don't think it's really a problem from that perspective. OTOH, it's something that is not necessarily easy to quantify accurately, because oftentimes, things are backed out that are *not* involved in bustage (just because there are several candidates and they're all backed out at once to unbust more quickly), although I guess they're relanded unchanged right afterwards. Mike _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
