John Marmion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mosedale)
>
> > As far as I'm aware, the thing holding this up for checkin has always
> > been review, not Netscape QA. It's true that Netscape would like to
> > QA their commercial builds first, but they still have time to do that
> > before the review completes. If there's still a testing issue by the
> > time sr= has been granted, that's probably not enough to hold up
> > checkin to the mozilla tree. But let's see if that actually turns out
> > to be a problem.
>
> I thought that we had agreed that we could land this patch if we
> have introduced no regression into the existing address book
> functionality. See the comments in:
>
> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=78933
Well, as far as I'm aware there have been no regressions in the
Mozilla build with your patches applied, and one of the QA folks in
eClient (olgac) has tested them. And I've run with them on and off
for a while as well.
But I assume what you're referring to from that bug was this
paragraph that I wrote:
| Since, as mentioned, I'm really just on the hook for the 17879 (LDAP) part of
| the review, and since that code doesn't yet have any UI to access it unless
| people mess with their prefs.js by hand, I'm ok with this code
| getting checked in as is long as 17879 stays open and we continue to
| work on review issues related to that there.
That paragraph was just referring to my review of the not-yet-exposed
LDAP functionality, and I'm still willing to land this patch with that
piece of the review postponed. I have no power to wave any sr=
requirements, though, and sr= is the big thing that we're waiting on
now, and has been for the last several weeks. I just pinged mscott
about this today, and he said he'd try and at least look at it today
or tommorrow; if he gets squeezed for cycles, perhaps we can get
bandwidth from another sr=.
> As the LDAP and Outlook functionality is only enabled by
> manually editing the prefs.js file, then there is no
> other way of activating this code in the absence of
>
> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83023
Except for the code referenced by 78932.
> So, while I understand that there were reasons for not putting
> it into milestone 0.9.2, why has there benn absolutley no
> activity on this bug since. All it needs is for QA to test
> that the Address Book functionality continues to behave as
> before. How difficult can that be?
Like I say, I think the thing we're really waiting for here is sr=;
I'm sorry if I did a poor job of communicating that before.
> Thus the review process could continue. You created the bug:
>
> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80172
>
> to collect any regressions.
Yup, so far none have been reported, which is a fine thing.
> I must admit to a certain amount of justified frustration on our
> part at what seems to be no activity on the Mozilla end to attempt
> to QA and land this patch. We have been trying to land this since
> April 20th.
Yes, I completely understand your justifiable frustration, and
apologize for this having been so painful. Hopefully we'll get past
this very soon, and future putbacks will go significantly more
smoothly.
Dan
--
