Yes, I think the important part is to mark checkin-needed on bugs that have patches that needs to be landed on mozilla-inbound/mozilla-central. I think I was unclear about this when asking for this email to be sent out in triage this morning.
We have had a lot of confusion around when bugs are ready for their initial checkin to mozilla-inbound. And when the person who wrote the patch is away for a few days bugs sit unfixed unnecessarily. Once a bug has had the initial patch landing, then I agree that marking the bug checkin-needed is not needed. But it doesn't hurt either. / Jonas On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Justin Lebar <[email protected]> wrote: > AIUI, patch will be uplifted if all of the conditions below are met. > > 1. The bug is marked RESOLVED FIXED. > 2. The bug is marked blocking-basecamp+ or the patch has aurora or > b2g18 approval. > 3. The bug is not marked fixed for b2g18 or is not marked fixed for > the current aurora version (*). > > Unless the rules have changed, if your bug meets the criteria above, > you /do not/ need checkin-needed. > > I hope it's not trolling to point out that, at the point that a > manager gets this wrong in an e-mail to the whole org, our system is > pretty broken. It's not the user's fault, and engineers (and > managers) shouldn't have to spend energy remembering complex rules > like this. (Indeed, I half expect RyanVM to explain that I've missed > an edge case above.) If we plan to continue developing B2G in this > way, with double- and triple-landing patches as a regular occurrence > in future versions, I think it would be worthwhile to consider whether > we can improve this process somehow. > > In the meantime, so long as we have rules this complex, we're always > going to have cases when people get them wrong. I appreciate the > continued systematic efforts of people to ensure that patches don't > get forgotten. > > Good processes accept that people will screw up and allow us to > recover with minimal fuss. In that sense, I don't think we have a > good process for triple-landing our code today. > > -Justin > > (*) I don't know how this interacts with rule (2) above. If the bug > is blocking-basecamp+ or has a patch which has approval-b2g18+, it > might show up in RyanVM's queries only if it's not marked b2g18-fixed. > Similarly, if a bug has approval-aurora+, it might show up in his > queries only if the bug is not marked aurora-fixed. > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Andrew Overholt <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Please be sure to mark checkin-needed on bugs where an uplift or merge is >> needed. That way the sheriffs can continue their awesome work of getting >> things into the right places. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Andrew >> _______________________________________________ >> dev-b2g mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g > _______________________________________________ > dev-b2g mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g _______________________________________________ dev-b2g mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
