Re: Clarifications needed to 'Intent to ship' process

[Jet Villegas]

The "Intent to Implement" should help some of the concerns and allow for
comments. "Intent to Ship" usually means (at least for Platform Rendering)
that we'll be removing the #ifndef RELEASE flags and enabling preferences.
That is, by the time the "Intent to Ship" e-mail is sent, fundamental
issues should have already been resolved with module owners and other
parties.

--Jet

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:19 PM, smaug  wrote:

> 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
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Clarifications needed to 'Intent to ship' process

[smaug]

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