On 12/19/2014 10:05 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Acceptable outcomes:
* A promise to attempt a fix at the bug is agreed upon, the bug is
assigned to someone and put in a queue.
How do we ensure that the follow-up bug actually does get fixed and it
fixes the regression completely?
Avi/Vladan will be tracking these and nagging as appropriate.
* The bug will contain enough details and evidence to support
accepting this regression, we will mark it as wontfix
* It is agreed that this should be backed out
Do we plan to have a different approach towards more severe
regressions? For example, if a patch regresses startup time by 50%,
would we still accept evidence to support that the regression should
be accepted, or would we tolerate it in the tree for a few weeks
before it gets fixed?
I don't think this can be answered in advance. If we're in this
situation, it will be because we're making some huge cost/benefit
tradeoff and we have high confidence that the regression can be fixed or
that it's worth the corresponding benefit. Product managers would likely
be involved in making the final decision based on a technical
recommendations from the engineers and the performance team.
--BDS
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
