Adopting the mozilla-central superreview policy in comm-central

Justin Wood (Callek) callek at gmail.com
Sat Jun 12 02:00:47 UTC 2010


  On 6/11/2010 1:39 PM, Dan Mosedale wrote:
>  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.

Basically yes; I am saying that. I am not however saying that it is an 
unacceptable amount of additional risk.

>> 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.

Of course, but TB also runs much less tests than SeaMonkey, even with 
its added MozMill tests (That SM does not yet run). I don't know of any 
way to get TB to run the relevant tests reliably, but that does make it 
less tests as well that are run relating to core code.

I also note that *my* focus on test side is both TB and SM, so my margin 
of thought stretches a bit further than is relevant in this thread on 
this point

>> 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.

I certainly agree that we have made GREAT strides, and are headed in the 
right direction, so I don't disagree that the right choices _are_ being 
made.

I just presented my points more as a "If we chose to do this, lets just 
be sure to acknowledge these differences between us adopting this policy 
and m-c"

-- 
~Justin Wood (Callek)



More information about the tb-planning mailing list