> From the other side, I've seen bugs tagged with something like, "not making > tef+, but we'll take a patch." > > Does this mean a patch can still be landed on b2g18 even though the bug isn't > tef+?
This will be a rare instance since we're trying to limit risk of regression by only taking tef+, please ping somebody when a patch is prepared in these cases. -Alex On Jan 17, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Mike Habicher <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13-01-16 08:18 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >>> * blocking-b2g:tef+ is for bugs that we've got agreement with partners >>> about needing as part of v1.0.0.0 >> This was my original understanding of this flag, it's not the >> information that I was told in the triaging sessions we've had the >> last couple of days. We have been marking many bugs as tef+ even when >> no partner was attending the meeting, which obviously means that we >> don't know if it's a partner requirement. > From the other side, I've seen bugs tagged with something like, "not making > tef+, but we'll take a patch." > > Does this mean a patch can still be landed on b2g18 even though the bug isn't > tef+? Or does it mean that once the patch lands on inbound, someone will > decide whether or not to pick it up on b2g18? (Or something else > entirely....) > > --m. > > _______________________________________________ dev-b2g mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
