proposal for blanket authorized orange fixes for mail & mailnews meeting specific constraints

Andrew Sutherland asutherland at
Fri Apr 1 03:58:17 UTC 2011

On 03/31/2011 08:11 PM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
> The deal-breaker for me is "module owner or peer of code in question." 
> since there are *some* people who could abuse this power if that 
> wasn't the case.

Did you mean to type "deal-maker" here?  It feels like this statement 
wants to agree with the previous statement.  In case it's a  specific 
point you do disagree with, let me elaborate on my logic for that point:

- I am assuming the module owners/peers have the best understanding of 
what the test is actually doing or actually intending to do.  It is very 
easy to break a test so that it neither fails nor tests what it is 
supposed to test.

- I believe we want the people theoretically responsible for a module to 
know what is going on inside of it.  If the list of module owners/peers 
does not correspond with reality, it should be amended.  The pragmatic 
example of this is that if I am writing buggy tests and someone keeps 
fixing them without me noticing, I may just keep on writing buggy tests :)


More information about the tb-planning mailing list