On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Andrew Halberstadt < > ahalberst...@mozilla.com> wrote: > >> On 28/01/16 06:31 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Gregory Szorc <gsz...@mozilla.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I'd like to thank everyone for the feedback in this thread. However, the >>>> thread has grown quite long and has detoured from its original subject. >>>> >>>> Speaking on behalf of everyone who works on MozReview, we know the >>>> interface is lacking in areas and features are confusing or non-existent. >>>> We're working on it. We're trying to morph workflows that have been >>>> practiced at Mozilla for over a decade. We're playing a delicate >>>> balancing >>>> game between giving familiarity with existing workflows (e.g. Bugzilla >>>> integration) while trying to slowly nudge us towards more "modern" and >>>> more >>>> powerful workflows. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Frankly, I'm a little dismayed to hear that you think that one of the >>> goals >>> of Mozreview >>> is to modify people's workflows. The primary problem with our existing >>> review system >>> isn't that it doesn't involve some more "modern" review idiom (leaving >>> aside the question >>> of whether it is in fact more modern), but rather that the UI is bad and >>> that it's a lot >>> less powerful than existing review tools, including those that enact >>> basically the >>> same design (cf. Rietveld). >>> >>> Speaking purely for myself, I'd be a lot happier if mozreview involved >>> less >>> nudging >>> and morphing and more developing of basic functionality. >>> >>> -Ekr >>> >> >> Not speaking to review per se, but engineering productivity in general. >> The problem is there are so many unique and one-off workflows at Mozilla >> that it gets harder and harder to improve "basic functionality" across >> all of them. > > > Well, the functionality that I hear people discussing and complaining about > with MozReview in this thread seems pretty common to most workflows: > > - The ability to review individual files > - The ability to r- not just remove r+ > - Concerns about how much context is included in the review. > > All of these things are mostly just issues in the Mozreview UI. > > > >> At some point, we hit vastly diminishing returns and get >> stretched too thin. We'd love to improve every existing workflow, but >> simply don't have the resources to do that. >> >> Instead, we try to make one really nice workflow such that people want >> to switch. > > > I think it's clear from this thread that that has not succeeded.
No-one has claimed that the work to make that nice workflow is done yet. > More generally, I keep seeing comments (especially from GPS) about > trying to push people towards some workflow that's different from the > patch-based workflow that's the modal bugzilla workflow that I suspect > most people now use. That doesn't seem like an especially valuable > goal for this work. I disagree. The workflow everyone is used to is the workflow that bugzilla essentially forces on us. Given the choice is it the workflow everyone would use? For some maybe but given how many people I see using mozreview now (even though it still has its problems) when the old workflow is still perfectly usable suggests that this new workflow is preferable to many and so this work is valuable. Some issues aside I find it much more more straightforward to use. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
