Adopting the mozilla-central superreview policy in comm-central
dmose at mozilla.org
Thu Jun 10 22:17:17 UTC 2010
On 6/10/10 3:01 PM, Karsten Düsterloh wrote:
>> Please respond with questions, comments, etc. If there's no responses,
>> I'll assume everyone is in agreement and start moving the discussion
>> forward to the newsgroups.
> Actually, I find this policy change strange, to say the least. I'd say
> that TB needs - no offence meant! - more reviewing, not less.
> I'm aware that reviewers as such are a scarce resource, but (as I said
> before) you can't exchange competence by automation...
I guess I'm not convinced that "more" versus "less" really captures the
nuance of the change that's on the table here. In particular, it seems
to me an attempt to focus the reviewing eyes where they're _most_
needed, rather than trying to blanket a too-large-code-base using
insufficient resources. Given that anyone (patch author or reviewer)
can and should be asking for second reviews when appropriate, this
strikes me as likely to still result in good general coverage. If you
disagree, I'm curious to understand in more detail...
More information about the tb-planning