I'd also love to take this opportunity to remind everyone, especially our newer contributors and developers, to be sure to add the "dev-doc-needed" keyword to the appropriate bugs for any changes which should include updates to documentation on MDN.
See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Developer_guide/Getting_documentation_updated for details on how this system works to help us document all the good stuff. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* smaug *Sent:* Monday, Apr 25, 2016 1:19:16 AM EDT *To:* dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org *Subject:* Clarifications needed to 'Intent to ship' process > based on couple of conversations we need some clarifications to > 'intent to ship'. > > First, we aren't yet consistent enough to send 'intent to ship' > emails. I think that takes > just some time for patch authors and reviewers to get used to the > process, that whenever there is some > larger than minor web phasing API addition/removal being done, 'intent > to ship' email to this list should be sent. > > Second, it isn't clear how we're supposed to react to the 'intent to > ship' emails. > I propose we require two OKs from the owners/peers of the relevant > module (of which one could be given while reviewing the patch), and > definitely no opposing comments from the owners/peers. But in case > other people object... I guess we'll always have special cases and > process can be > improved when needed. -- Eric Shepherd Senior Technical Writer Mozilla Developer Network <https://developer.mozilla.org/> Blog: https://www.bitstampede.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/sheppy Doodle: http://doodle.com/the.sheppy _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
