Adopting the mozilla-central superreview policy in comm-central
dmose at mozilla.org
Fri Jun 11 17:39:13 UTC 2010
On 6/10/10 4:59 PM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
> Ok, I'm not inherently against this, BUT there are a few points I
> want to make.
> The mozilla-central current rule exists after THOUSANDS of tests have
> been written and in use. And have (for a lot longer than us) REQUIRED
> tests for every bug patch.
It sounds like you might be saying "this has somewhat more risk than it
did for mozilla-central." That's certainly possible. I don't see
evidence that we shouldn't accept some amount of risk in order to be
able to move faster.
> Now I know TB has required tests, but we are still in a way "O,
> orange; must be a perma orange, likely not my fault" general mentality
> on trunk.
Now that 3.1 is in release candidate mode, the trunk is being whipped
gradually back into shape.
> Suite and TB coverage here would help my level of confidence, even
> more so if we are sure to get a much larger and more redundant level
> of code coverage with our tests.
Given the new test requirement policies that went into effect at the
beginning of the year, I think we're on our way there! If you
disagree, I'd be interested to understand why.
More information about the tb-planning