Adopting the mozilla-central superreview policy in comm-central

Andrew Sutherland asutherland at
Fri Jun 11 00:07:37 UTC 2010

  On 06/10/2010 03:01 PM, Karsten Düsterloh wrote:
> 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...

Can you cite specific examples where you feel that the reviewing 
performed was insufficient?  (I'm asking for a specific feature or 
regression; you don't need to trawl the hg log for a specific commit.)  
Many times we have intentionally landed (large) things that were not 
completely baked intentionally for a mixture of reasons, time frequently 
being a concern.

In the hypothetical, I'd be more inclined to blame a lack of tests than 
a lack of reviewing.  (Although obviously the reviewer can request 
additional tests.)


More information about the tb-planning mailing list