(I want to avoid entangling the dom/webidl plan with this discussion, which
is why I forked the thread)
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> Following up on this, people asked us to not abuse the superreview flag for
> this purpose
If this is "abuse", doesn't that demonstrate
Those asides are precisely the reason it's "abuse" :)
We should update the list, but from a quick skim I think there aren't
more than 2-3 names on that list that need removing. Part of the
problem might be solved by introducing an "superreviewer emeriti"
list.
Gavin
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:36
On 2014-04-24, 6:36 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
(I want to avoid entangling the dom/webidl plan with this discussion,
which is why I forked the thread)
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Ehsan Akhgari mailto:ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Following up on this, people asked us to not abuse the s
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> Those asides are precisely the reason it's "abuse" :)
>
> We should update the list
What is the list good for, exactly? There doesn't seem to be any consistent
usage of it anymore. In the areas that I work on (JS, XPConnect, DOM, and
other i
(moving dev-b2g to bcc because cross-group threads are evil)
We do have fairly clear rules: http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/reviewers.html
(The definitions of "Significant" and "API" are somewhat subjective, though
it's impossible to come up with completely objective definitions - IIRC
there were
If my git fu is correct, we only landed 180 patches with sr=. In 2009, we
landed 1033 patches with super review. Of the sr= that landed in the last
year, most were sr’ed by people from the DOM team (olli, sicking, blake, bz,
sicking, sicking, sicking).
I tend to think that super review is a du
