Adopting the mozilla-central superreview policy in comm-central

Dan Mosedale dmose at
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 mailing list