Hi all,
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.
Then there is also the case when relevant module doesn't really have peers, or not enough peers. I guess in that case OK from an owner/peer of a
related module is fine too, or from a DE, or even from an active superreviewer (I know we aren't really using sr that much anymore).
Note, this all is a separate thing from .webidl reviews, since the webidl may be written way before shipping, and reviewers for the .webidl are
possibly different than those giving OKs to the overall API and its implementation.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI/ExposureGuidelines should be update once there
is some agreement on what kind of process we want.
comments?
-Olli
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
