Adopting the mozilla-central superreview policy in comm-central

Dan Mosedale dmose at
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 mailing list