Adopting the mozilla-central superreview policy in comm-central

Karsten Düsterloh mnyromyr at
Thu Jun 10 23:02:25 UTC 2010

Dan Mosedale aber hob zu reden an und schrieb:
>> 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.

Well, not in the strict sense of words. 10 people looking at something
they don't fully grasp instead of 1 surely won't help.
Certain classes of potential bugs are just invisible to the less
experienced. Hence they _can't_ and won't request further
(super-)review, because they don't even know there's a problem!

> 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.

I just doubt that exchanging quality by throughput is helping.

> Given that anyone (patch author or reviewer) can and should be asking
> for second reviews when appropriate,

How would they know? (See above.)


More information about the tb-planning mailing list