Re: XPCOM Ownership and Code Review Policy

[Darin Fisher]

I'm also fine with these changes, though certain components in xpcom/io should be excluded (or handled as they are today). The fastload components fall into this category. It makes most sense for Brendan (or someone he appoints) to have final say over changes to that code.

Darin



David Bradley wrote:

I'm fine with this and the divisions as listed.

David

Doug Turner wrote:

If you are on the TO list of this email, please respond by Feb 20 with your thoughts on this matter:

XPCOM Peers,
I would like to break up and distribute the ownership responsibilities of XPCOM. This really isn�t something new, but rather I just want to formalize what we have been doing. The ownership distribution of XPCOM can roughly be described by the set of directories under mozilla/xpcom. I would like to make known and public those that are responsible for these areas.

Note that there are a few areas within the xpcom directory where what I proposed doesn't apply. nsCOMPtr falls into this set. Another is brendan's double hash stuff. I am sure that there are others. For changes to those areas, the "module" (in our case directory) owner of course seek the advice and review of the expert.

OWNERSHIP

[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

xpcom/glue
xpcom/base
xpcom/components
xpcom/sample
xpcom/tools

[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

xpcom/reflect
xpcom/typelib
xpcom/libxpt

[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

xpcom/ds

[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

xpcom/io

Shared responsibility (the buck stops with dougt)

xpcom/threads

REVIEW POLICY

I would like to ensure that all check-in to mozilla/xpcom require a review from one of us. Furthermore, any new code must be run by � not necessary reviewed by me (this is to ensure that xpcom doesn�t continue to be a dumping ground for all things that don�t fit elsewhere.)

Because, our module does have strong ownership, I would like to end the requirement of having check-ins requiring a �super review�. XPCOM "directory" owners can stay with the SR policy if they like (as it is more restrictive than the one that I apply to mozilla/xpcom, however it is completely up to that owner.


Regards,