On 04.04.13 23:49, Andrew Sutherland wrote:
On 04/03/2013 05:22 PM, Alex Keybl wrote:
You seem to be suggesting that the approval process doesn't
catch/prevent mistakes. That's just not true. We still get frivolous
bugs being nominated for uplift, which points to the fact that these
changes would have otherwise been landed without a conversation, and
possibly caused blocker regressions. We still find uplift nominations
asking for unnecessary string changes late in the cycle. We still get
approvals that haven't gone through a UX review. The list of things
that we have an eye for goes on and on.
Is everyone making these mistakes? It seems like there may be people
with significant mozilla development experience like jlebar, roc, etc.
who can be granted 'a=' authority and trusted to know when their own
judgement is sufficient and when they need to ask for approval.
And I think assuming that everyone asking for approval would have landed
the bugs without asking is wrong. I know I've asked for approval for
patches with l10n changes because of situations similar to how *partners
are even now still requesting features on v1.0.1 that require new
strings*. (At those points in time the flag situation was different to
how it is now.) Obviously, unnecessary string changes are different
from completely new strings, but I know when it became clear that our
string freeze was a beautiful dream detached from reality, I stopped
obsessing about minor string changes slipping through.
Andrew
.... and there goes your product. Seriously, I can't picture how you can
expect to ship a product that doesn't remotely matter in en-US with that
attitude.
Axel
_______________________________________________
dev-b2g mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
