Changes to review policy

Jim Porter squibblyflabbetydoo at
Thu Apr 28 17:59:24 UTC 2016

On 04/28/2016 11:44 AM, R Kent James wrote:
> On 4/27/2016 10:33 PM, Jim Porter wrote:
>> Therefore, I'd like to propose the following: any change to
>> Thunderbird's defaults should have a super-review before landing.
> Let's ask these questions:
> 1.    Is the Correspondents column in fact a debacle that in hindsight
> the majority of key developers agree was a mistake as implemented?

My specific issue is the *upgrade* process, not the column as a whole.
This will be relevant in my replies to the following points.

> 2.    Would a super-review process have prevented the debacle?

I think it would help *if* super-reviewers agreed on the standards for
making changes (not additions or deletions) to the UI. Having set
standards for this is a key to ensuring that it will work.

> 3.    Do we have sufficient reviewers that we can add complexity to the
> review process without needlessly slowing down an already slow process?

Since I'm only concerned with the upgrade process, the additional review
effort is actually very small. (Not that this necessarily means reviews
will happen promptly.) If I were SRing the original patch, I'd only have
to look at a diff in one small function. The rest of the review could be
left up to the regular reviewers.

- Jim

More information about the tb-planning mailing list