On 22/01/16 12:20 AM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Gregory Szorc <g...@mozilla.com> wrote:
I've gotten into the habit of just landing things if I r+ them and I think
they are ready to land. This has startled a few people because it is a major
role reversal of how we've done things for years. (Typically we require the
patch submitter to do the landing.) But I think reviewer-initiated landing
is a better approach
I often ask for review first and only do a try run after I've gotten
r+ and made any necessary changes. I also often make small changes
after obtaining review (e.g. minor comment fix-ups). Both of these
behaviours are incompatible with reviewer-initiated landing.
Maybe I'm unusual. But I can definitely understand why people are startled.
I do this too, I don't think it's unusual. Another case is when there
are multiple dependent bugs that need to land in a specific order, and
you flag them all for review at the same time for parallelism.
I was concerned at first as well, but after thinking about it some more,
this seems like something that will sort itself out automatically. There
may be a few miscommunications that lead to backouts at first, but in
the end either:
1. Patch authors will amend their workflows with the assumption that r?
== ready to land.
2. Specific teams/individuals will come to an agreement not to land each
others' patches. In this case if you need a review from someone outside
your team and you don't want them to land, a simple "Please do not land
yet" is likely good enough.
-Andrew
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
