njn didn't want to call me out as the culprit here, but I'm happy to own up to it. :)
> "Pushed to inbound" is an important status to have indicated in the bug, I don't feel like it's /always/ important. On a bug that njn and I are the only ones watching and which gets landed on m-i over the weekend, it's not at all clear to me that anyone is hurting for lack of an explicit notification that the bug was landed on m-i, and it's not clear to me that the utility of the general rule is somehow weakened by my not following it in that case. Having said that, I don't think it would be hard to write an hg hook which comments in the relevant bugs when a push is made to m-i. Maybe that would be a reasonable way to get uniformity and immediate notification in the bug when a patch is pushed to m-i while reducing process for everyone. We already automatically notify in #developers when something is pushed to m-i, and notifying in the bug seems at least as important. I filed a bug. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=799101 On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Gavin Sharp <ga...@gavinsharp.com> wrote: > I disagree. "Pushed to inbound" is an important status to have > indicated in the bug, and the best way to do that is to include the > inbound changeset URL (even though it will be the same revision when > it gets to m-c, it's useful to know where it is until it gets there). > It also helps with backouts, and for later identifying the progression > of a patch. > > Gavin > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Nicholas Nethercote > <n.netherc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> In https://wiki.mozilla.org/Tree_Rules/Inbound, one of the steps under >> "Please do the following after pushing to inbound" is: >> >> "Add the inbound changeset URL to the bug. If there are multiple >> patches on the bug and you are not pushing all of them, please >> indicate which one(s) you pushed (eg: use patch -> details -> comment >> on patch, or else use the new per-patch checkin+ flags)." >> >> I heard someone say today that this should be an optional step. I >> think the rationale is that it's unnecessary because the subsequent >> mozilla-central links usually contain much the same information. I am >> wondering if others agreed or disagreed with this opinion. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Nick >> _______________________________________________ >> dev-platform mailing list >> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
