Like Greg, I'm a big fan of reviewer-lands-if-ready. It's a huge simplification of workflow, saves developers time, and lets machines do work instead of humans. That said, I don't think we should be surprising people or unilaterally imposing changes to their workflow. The best way to do this is to make it simple to adopt, and demonstrably better than the old way. Developers will migrate over time as they see the light.
I think this is an easy fix if we're willing to modify our patch submission workflow to reflect a wider set of asks and responses. It's more or less the same mental model as the multi-state flags we use for tracking, there's more than one type of request, and more than one possible response. Simple proposal: replace review/feedback flags with a new, multiple-requestable flag. Possible values could be: feedback? review? land? feedback+ withcomments+ review+ land+ Patch authors would be able to opt into the easier flow by setting "land?" instead of "review?" "review?" and "feedback?" would retain their current definitions. Patch reviewers would be able to respond explicitly with feedback, a conditional r+, full r+, or land+. * Anything where land+ is set would trigger autoland. * land+ should be set only if requested, or if the reviewer believes that's expected * patch authors would be allowed to autoland with review+ * withcomments+ or feedback+ would not allow autoland. In the short term, we could experiment with this as an additional patch flag (land?/+/-). I think the multi-state flag reflects current workflow reality and eliminates nuance, so should be explored. -- Mike On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Richard Newman <rnew...@mozilla.com> wrote: > Both of these behaviours are incompatible with reviewer-initiated landing. >> > > I've fallen on both sides of this particular fence; sometimes I want to > fire-and-forget a patch, and sometimes I still want to digest further after > getting review (or I know a piece of work is incomplete and further parts > will be forthcoming). > > Perhaps this needs an opt-in flag on the input side? > > "r?, and land it if you're happy" versus "r?, but I'll take care of > landing"? > > > _______________________________________________ > firefox-dev mailing list > firefox-...@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/firefox-dev > > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
