Changes to review policy

Ludovic Hirlimann ludovic at
Thu Apr 28 08:53:30 UTC 2016

On 28/04/2016 07:33, Jim Porter wrote:
> Therefore, I'd like to propose the following: any change to
> Thunderbird's defaults should have a super-review before landing.
> Super-reviewers would be especially focused on making sure that changes
> meet most or all the following conditions, in descending order of
> importance:
> 1) No data/program state should be lost.
> 2) Before changing a default, we should be sure the new default is
>    fully-operational.
> 3) Users should have an easy path to roll back to the previous UI/UX if
>    they don't like the new version. If possible, ask the user *before*
>    upgrading them.
> 4) It should be easy for users to find out what's changed, along with
>    instructions for how to adjust the new behavior to their liking.
I wished we had done that for 3.0. We changed so many UI default that
some people stayed on 2.x forever :( It was so bad that one of the new
default was reverted in 3.1. (grouped inbox versus account inbox for
those wondering).

I do believe that ui changes are easily accepted if noyt noticeable at
first :)

so I'd +1 jim proposition.


:Usul in #moc on
Mozilla Operation Center
<3 ipv6 , <3 Gaming , <3 OSS

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 213 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the tb-planning mailing list