Re: Checkin-needed requests - Please include complete information in the commit message :)

[Lawrence Mandel]

Autoland is not yet optimal but the team continues to work on it. Long term
I think we want as much of our load to go through autoland as possible so
that we can apply a consistent approach to how code is integrated into the
tree. I would encourage you to use autoland. Tryserver wait times should be
significantly lower now. If try wait times increase (and we're watching),
we will deal with it.

Lawrence

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Jared Wein  wrote:

> Do we need autoland to land each patch independently? If I have three
> disparate patches that I can land right now, should I use mozreview to land
> them and use 3x the infra or use checkin-needed and their checkin will
> likely be coalesced?
>
> This is the position that I face often and is why I choose to use
> checkin-needed. Along with jesup, I've waited hours for tryserver results
> in the past and I want to be a "good citizen" and not increase infra
> demands.
>
> Am I in the wrong here? Ideally autoland would have some heuristic for
> coalescing requests so we can be polite to the build system and the people
> waiting on it.
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Andrew McCreight 
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Martin Thomson  wrote:
> >
> > > Is now the right time to start talking about retiring checkin-needed,
> > > or is it still heavily used?
> > >
> >
> > It is useful for anybody who doesn't use MozReview. FWIW I see 14 bugs
> with
> > it set right now.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Gregory Szorc  wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Felipe G  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Is there a way to make the checkin-needed flag generate a template
> > > comment
> > > >> (like the approval-* ones do) with something like this? (Or
> encourage
> > > >> people to use the per-patch checkin? flag)
> > > >>
> > > >> """
> > > >> Has this patch been through try? [ Yes / No, I believe it's not
> > > necessary ]
> > > >> Does this patch contain the correct author / commit message? [ Yes
> > > >> (preferred) / No, but I'm providing it here: ]
> > > >> Are there any other dependencies that should be landed together? [
> > Yes,
> > > ...
> > > >> / No ]
> > > >> """
> > > >>
> > > >> Probably just asking if the information is present will reduce the
> > > number
> > > >> of requests made without it
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > My knee jerk reaction is we shouldn't bother: MozReview handles most
> of
> > > > this "validation" and usage of MozReview has been steadily
> increasing.
> > > > We're trending towards a world where the only patches on Splinter are
> > for
> > > > security-sensitive bugs (MozReview can't handle those yet) and the
> > people
> > > > submitting patches to security bugs tend to know what they're doing
> so
> > I
> > > > don't think these added checks will help.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Ryan VanderMeulen <
> rya...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > FWIW, there's also an MDN page that documents a lot of this as
> well:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mercurial/Using_Mercurial#How_can_I_generate_a_patch_for_somebody_else_to_check-in_for_me.3F
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -Ryan
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On 7/8/2016 2:32 AM, Carsten Book wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Hi,
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> someone might not know that doing checkins for checkin-needed
> > > request is
> > > >> >> not automated yet and completely a fully human task :) (no we
> > > Sheriffs
> > > >> are
> > > >> >> not bots ;)
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> It would help us a lot if a checkin needed request would contain
> > > >> complete
> > > >> >> Author/Patch information like:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>- Author (use the information from their Bugzilla account if
> > > needed)
> > > >> >>with Name *and *Emailadress.
> > > >> >>- Bug number
> > > >> >>- Commit message (keeping in mind that the commit message
> should
> > > be a
> > > >> >>brief description of what the patch is *doing*)
> > > >> >>   - Format should be something like "Bug 123456 - Add a null
> > > check
> > > >> to
> > > >> >>   XYZ to avoid a crash. r=somebody"
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> And also if there is a specific sequence/dependency you want to
> > > checkin
> > > >> >> the
> > > >> >> patches it would help also a lot  if you could make a short
> comment
> > > in
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> Bug like please checkin part x then patch y or like first bug 123
> > > then
> > > >> >> this
> > > >> >> bug and then bug 8910.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> This would help us a lot :)
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Thanks!
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> - Tomcat
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > ___
> > > >> > dev-platform mailing list
> > > >> > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> > > >> > 

Re: Checkin-needed requests - Please include complete information in the commit message :)

[Jared Wein]

Do we need autoland to land each patch independently? If I have three
disparate patches that I can land right now, should I use mozreview to land
them and use 3x the infra or use checkin-needed and their checkin will
likely be coalesced?

This is the position that I face often and is why I choose to use
checkin-needed. Along with jesup, I've waited hours for tryserver results
in the past and I want to be a "good citizen" and not increase infra
demands.

Am I in the wrong here? Ideally autoland would have some heuristic for
coalescing requests so we can be polite to the build system and the people
waiting on it.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Andrew McCreight 
wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Martin Thomson  wrote:
>
> > Is now the right time to start talking about retiring checkin-needed,
> > or is it still heavily used?
> >
>
> It is useful for anybody who doesn't use MozReview. FWIW I see 14 bugs with
> it set right now.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Gregory Szorc  wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Felipe G  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Is there a way to make the checkin-needed flag generate a template
> > comment
> > >> (like the approval-* ones do) with something like this? (Or encourage
> > >> people to use the per-patch checkin? flag)
> > >>
> > >> """
> > >> Has this patch been through try? [ Yes / No, I believe it's not
> > necessary ]
> > >> Does this patch contain the correct author / commit message? [ Yes
> > >> (preferred) / No, but I'm providing it here: ]
> > >> Are there any other dependencies that should be landed together? [
> Yes,
> > ...
> > >> / No ]
> > >> """
> > >>
> > >> Probably just asking if the information is present will reduce the
> > number
> > >> of requests made without it
> > >>
> > >
> > > My knee jerk reaction is we shouldn't bother: MozReview handles most of
> > > this "validation" and usage of MozReview has been steadily increasing.
> > > We're trending towards a world where the only patches on Splinter are
> for
> > > security-sensitive bugs (MozReview can't handle those yet) and the
> people
> > > submitting patches to security bugs tend to know what they're doing so
> I
> > > don't think these added checks will help.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Ryan VanderMeulen 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > FWIW, there's also an MDN page that documents a lot of this as well:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mercurial/Using_Mercurial#How_can_I_generate_a_patch_for_somebody_else_to_check-in_for_me.3F
> > >> >
> > >> > -Ryan
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On 7/8/2016 2:32 AM, Carsten Book wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Hi,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> someone might not know that doing checkins for checkin-needed
> > request is
> > >> >> not automated yet and completely a fully human task :) (no we
> > Sheriffs
> > >> are
> > >> >> not bots ;)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> It would help us a lot if a checkin needed request would contain
> > >> complete
> > >> >> Author/Patch information like:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>- Author (use the information from their Bugzilla account if
> > needed)
> > >> >>with Name *and *Emailadress.
> > >> >>- Bug number
> > >> >>- Commit message (keeping in mind that the commit message should
> > be a
> > >> >>brief description of what the patch is *doing*)
> > >> >>   - Format should be something like "Bug 123456 - Add a null
> > check
> > >> to
> > >> >>   XYZ to avoid a crash. r=somebody"
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> And also if there is a specific sequence/dependency you want to
> > checkin
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> patches it would help also a lot  if you could make a short comment
> > in
> > >> the
> > >> >> Bug like please checkin part x then patch y or like first bug 123
> > then
> > >> >> this
> > >> >> bug and then bug 8910.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> This would help us a lot :)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Thanks!
> > >> >>
> > >> >> - Tomcat
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > ___
> > >> > 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
> > >>
> > > ___
> > > 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
> >
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>

Re: Checkin-needed requests - Please include complete information in the commit message :)

[Andrew McCreight]

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Martin Thomson  wrote:

> Is now the right time to start talking about retiring checkin-needed,
> or is it still heavily used?
>

It is useful for anybody who doesn't use MozReview. FWIW I see 14 bugs with
it set right now.






>
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Gregory Szorc  wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Felipe G  wrote:
> >
> >> Is there a way to make the checkin-needed flag generate a template
> comment
> >> (like the approval-* ones do) with something like this? (Or encourage
> >> people to use the per-patch checkin? flag)
> >>
> >> """
> >> Has this patch been through try? [ Yes / No, I believe it's not
> necessary ]
> >> Does this patch contain the correct author / commit message? [ Yes
> >> (preferred) / No, but I'm providing it here: ]
> >> Are there any other dependencies that should be landed together? [ Yes,
> ...
> >> / No ]
> >> """
> >>
> >> Probably just asking if the information is present will reduce the
> number
> >> of requests made without it
> >>
> >
> > My knee jerk reaction is we shouldn't bother: MozReview handles most of
> > this "validation" and usage of MozReview has been steadily increasing.
> > We're trending towards a world where the only patches on Splinter are for
> > security-sensitive bugs (MozReview can't handle those yet) and the people
> > submitting patches to security bugs tend to know what they're doing so I
> > don't think these added checks will help.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Ryan VanderMeulen 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > FWIW, there's also an MDN page that documents a lot of this as well:
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mercurial/Using_Mercurial#How_can_I_generate_a_patch_for_somebody_else_to_check-in_for_me.3F
> >> >
> >> > -Ryan
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 7/8/2016 2:32 AM, Carsten Book wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> someone might not know that doing checkins for checkin-needed
> request is
> >> >> not automated yet and completely a fully human task :) (no we
> Sheriffs
> >> are
> >> >> not bots ;)
> >> >>
> >> >> It would help us a lot if a checkin needed request would contain
> >> complete
> >> >> Author/Patch information like:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>- Author (use the information from their Bugzilla account if
> needed)
> >> >>with Name *and *Emailadress.
> >> >>- Bug number
> >> >>- Commit message (keeping in mind that the commit message should
> be a
> >> >>brief description of what the patch is *doing*)
> >> >>   - Format should be something like "Bug 123456 - Add a null
> check
> >> to
> >> >>   XYZ to avoid a crash. r=somebody"
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> And also if there is a specific sequence/dependency you want to
> checkin
> >> >> the
> >> >> patches it would help also a lot  if you could make a short comment
> in
> >> the
> >> >> Bug like please checkin part x then patch y or like first bug 123
> then
> >> >> this
> >> >> bug and then bug 8910.
> >> >>
> >> >> This would help us a lot :)
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks!
> >> >>
> >> >> - Tomcat
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > ___
> >> > 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
> >>
> > ___
> > 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
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Checkin-needed requests - Please include complete information in the commit message :)

[Randell Jesup]

>On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Xidorn Quan  wrote:
>> I also use checkin-needed for small changes which I don't think it's
>> worth to run a full testset for, to save some infra resources.
>
>Hmm, that's an odd optimization.  I'd have thought that sheriff time
>is more valuable than infra.

It's not just the the value of sheriff time vs infra cost, it's the
delta cost to other developers who end up waiting longer in Try/etc
queues before *they* can land.  When you fairly often see 4/6/12 or ever
18/24 hour turnarounds on Try, anything that noticably ups the load on
infra when there's a low chance of catching something is a bad trade.
Of course, this depends on the devs being smart about what they skip
try/autoland on (for example, nit-fix changes are a good choice - usually).

-- 
Randell Jesup, Mozilla Corp
remove "news" for personal email
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Checkin-needed requests - Please include complete information in the commit message :)

[Gijs Kruitbosch]

On 11/07/2016 07:26, Martin Thomson wrote:

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Xidorn Quan  wrote:

Isn't it still necessary for people who don't yet have permission to
push?


That suggests to me that there are missing safeguards on autoland.
Otherwise we could just enable it even for those with try access.


Not everyone has try access.

~ Gijs

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

Re: Checkin-needed requests - Please include complete information in the commit message :)

[Gijs Kruitbosch]

On 11/07/2016 07:43, Xidorn Quan wrote:

Because we don't want to reveal details before we are comfortable with
disclosing them. It can go via MozReview *after* a patch is reviewed and
gets sec-approval, but not the reverse.


I think even that isn't straightforward. mozreview does not allow 
autoland until the patch has been marked as reviewed within mozreview. 
Just pushing to mozreview with r=foo does not do that (it'll get 
interpreted the same way as r?foo) and so this would be a lot of 
annoyance and coordination with the reviewer to give r+ again just to 
get it to go through mozreview + autoland. checkin-needed or just 
manually pushing it yourself is much easier.


~ Gijs

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

Re: Checkin-needed requests - Please include complete information in the commit message :)

[Xidorn Quan]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016, at 04:26 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Xidorn Quan  wrote:
> > I also use checkin-needed for small changes which I don't think it's
> > worth to run a full testset for, to save some infra resources.
> 
> Hmm, that's an odd optimization.  I'd have thought that sheriff time
> is more valuable than infra.

So I only use it when I feel pretty confident that it wouldn't need
further care and unlikely cause any conflict. Sheriff time is indeed
more valuable than infra, but long backlog on infra may take sheriffs
more time to handle as well, which could be more expensive than checking
in a small patch.

It seems to me there was still some bottleneck on our infra which could
cause significant backlog when there are lots of pushes. Test machine
for Windows and macOS, presumably?

> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Nils Ohlmeier 
> wrote:
> > Another use case for checkin-needed are probably sec bugs, as you can’t use 
> > mozreview for them AFAIK.
> 
> As for sec-critical bugs, as long as the change is going to hit the
> tree with the bug number in it, then I don't see why it can't go via
> mozreview.

Because we don't want to reveal details before we are comfortable with
disclosing them. It can go via MozReview *after* a patch is reviewed and
gets sec-approval, but not the reverse.

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

Re: Checkin-needed requests - Please include complete information in the commit message :)

[Martin Thomson]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Xidorn Quan  wrote:
> Isn't it still necessary for people who don't yet have permission to
> push?

That suggests to me that there are missing safeguards on autoland.
Otherwise we could just enable it even for those with try access.

> I also use checkin-needed for small changes which I don't think it's
> worth to run a full testset for, to save some infra resources.

Hmm, that's an odd optimization.  I'd have thought that sheriff time
is more valuable than infra.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Nils Ohlmeier  wrote:
> Another use case for checkin-needed are probably sec bugs, as you can’t use 
> mozreview for them AFAIK.

As for sec-critical bugs, as long as the change is going to hit the
tree with the bug number in it, then I don't see why it can't go via
mozreview.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Checkin-needed requests - Please include complete information in the commit message :)

[Nils Ohlmeier]

> On Jul 10, 2016, at 21:18, Xidorn Quan  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016, at 12:29 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> Is now the right time to start talking about retiring checkin-needed,
>> or is it still heavily used?
> 
> Isn't it still necessary for people who don't yet have permission to
> push?

Another use case for checkin-needed are probably sec bugs, as you can’t use 
mozreview for them AFAIK.

  Nils


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Checkin-needed requests - Please include complete information in the commit message :)

[Xidorn Quan]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016, at 12:29 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> Is now the right time to start talking about retiring checkin-needed,
> or is it still heavily used?

Isn't it still necessary for people who don't yet have permission to
push?

I also use checkin-needed for small changes which I don't think it's
worth to run a full testset for, to save some infra resources.

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

Re: Checkin-needed requests - Please include complete information in the commit message :)

[Martin Thomson]

Is now the right time to start talking about retiring checkin-needed,
or is it still heavily used?

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Gregory Szorc  wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Felipe G  wrote:
>
>> Is there a way to make the checkin-needed flag generate a template comment
>> (like the approval-* ones do) with something like this? (Or encourage
>> people to use the per-patch checkin? flag)
>>
>> """
>> Has this patch been through try? [ Yes / No, I believe it's not necessary ]
>> Does this patch contain the correct author / commit message? [ Yes
>> (preferred) / No, but I'm providing it here: ]
>> Are there any other dependencies that should be landed together? [ Yes, ...
>> / No ]
>> """
>>
>> Probably just asking if the information is present will reduce the number
>> of requests made without it
>>
>
> My knee jerk reaction is we shouldn't bother: MozReview handles most of
> this "validation" and usage of MozReview has been steadily increasing.
> We're trending towards a world where the only patches on Splinter are for
> security-sensitive bugs (MozReview can't handle those yet) and the people
> submitting patches to security bugs tend to know what they're doing so I
> don't think these added checks will help.
>
>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Ryan VanderMeulen 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > FWIW, there's also an MDN page that documents a lot of this as well:
>> >
>> >
>> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mercurial/Using_Mercurial#How_can_I_generate_a_patch_for_somebody_else_to_check-in_for_me.3F
>> >
>> > -Ryan
>> >
>> >
>> > On 7/8/2016 2:32 AM, Carsten Book wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> someone might not know that doing checkins for checkin-needed request is
>> >> not automated yet and completely a fully human task :) (no we Sheriffs
>> are
>> >> not bots ;)
>> >>
>> >> It would help us a lot if a checkin needed request would contain
>> complete
>> >> Author/Patch information like:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>- Author (use the information from their Bugzilla account if needed)
>> >>with Name *and *Emailadress.
>> >>- Bug number
>> >>- Commit message (keeping in mind that the commit message should be a
>> >>brief description of what the patch is *doing*)
>> >>   - Format should be something like "Bug 123456 - Add a null check
>> to
>> >>   XYZ to avoid a crash. r=somebody"
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And also if there is a specific sequence/dependency you want to checkin
>> >> the
>> >> patches it would help also a lot  if you could make a short comment in
>> the
>> >> Bug like please checkin part x then patch y or like first bug 123 then
>> >> this
>> >> bug and then bug 8910.
>> >>
>> >> This would help us a lot :)
>> >>
>> >> Thanks!
>> >>
>> >> - Tomcat
>> >>
>> >>
>> > ___
>> > 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
>>
> ___
> 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

Re: Checkin-needed requests - Please include complete information in the commit message :)

[Gregory Szorc]

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Felipe G  wrote:

> Is there a way to make the checkin-needed flag generate a template comment
> (like the approval-* ones do) with something like this? (Or encourage
> people to use the per-patch checkin? flag)
>
> """
> Has this patch been through try? [ Yes / No, I believe it's not necessary ]
> Does this patch contain the correct author / commit message? [ Yes
> (preferred) / No, but I'm providing it here: ]
> Are there any other dependencies that should be landed together? [ Yes, ...
> / No ]
> """
>
> Probably just asking if the information is present will reduce the number
> of requests made without it
>

My knee jerk reaction is we shouldn't bother: MozReview handles most of
this "validation" and usage of MozReview has been steadily increasing.
We're trending towards a world where the only patches on Splinter are for
security-sensitive bugs (MozReview can't handle those yet) and the people
submitting patches to security bugs tend to know what they're doing so I
don't think these added checks will help.


>
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Ryan VanderMeulen 
> wrote:
>
> > FWIW, there's also an MDN page that documents a lot of this as well:
> >
> >
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mercurial/Using_Mercurial#How_can_I_generate_a_patch_for_somebody_else_to_check-in_for_me.3F
> >
> > -Ryan
> >
> >
> > On 7/8/2016 2:32 AM, Carsten Book wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> someone might not know that doing checkins for checkin-needed request is
> >> not automated yet and completely a fully human task :) (no we Sheriffs
> are
> >> not bots ;)
> >>
> >> It would help us a lot if a checkin needed request would contain
> complete
> >> Author/Patch information like:
> >>
> >>
> >>- Author (use the information from their Bugzilla account if needed)
> >>with Name *and *Emailadress.
> >>- Bug number
> >>- Commit message (keeping in mind that the commit message should be a
> >>brief description of what the patch is *doing*)
> >>   - Format should be something like "Bug 123456 - Add a null check
> to
> >>   XYZ to avoid a crash. r=somebody"
> >>
> >>
> >> And also if there is a specific sequence/dependency you want to checkin
> >> the
> >> patches it would help also a lot  if you could make a short comment in
> the
> >> Bug like please checkin part x then patch y or like first bug 123 then
> >> this
> >> bug and then bug 8910.
> >>
> >> This would help us a lot :)
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> - Tomcat
> >>
> >>
> > ___
> > 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
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Checkin-needed requests - Please include complete information in the commit message :)

[Felipe G]

Is there a way to make the checkin-needed flag generate a template comment
(like the approval-* ones do) with something like this? (Or encourage
people to use the per-patch checkin? flag)

"""
Has this patch been through try? [ Yes / No, I believe it's not necessary ]
Does this patch contain the correct author / commit message? [ Yes
(preferred) / No, but I'm providing it here: ]
Are there any other dependencies that should be landed together? [ Yes, ...
/ No ]
"""

Probably just asking if the information is present will reduce the number
of requests made without it

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Ryan VanderMeulen  wrote:

> FWIW, there's also an MDN page that documents a lot of this as well:
>
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mercurial/Using_Mercurial#How_can_I_generate_a_patch_for_somebody_else_to_check-in_for_me.3F
>
> -Ryan
>
>
> On 7/8/2016 2:32 AM, Carsten Book wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> someone might not know that doing checkins for checkin-needed request is
>> not automated yet and completely a fully human task :) (no we Sheriffs are
>> not bots ;)
>>
>> It would help us a lot if a checkin needed request would contain complete
>> Author/Patch information like:
>>
>>
>>- Author (use the information from their Bugzilla account if needed)
>>with Name *and *Emailadress.
>>- Bug number
>>- Commit message (keeping in mind that the commit message should be a
>>brief description of what the patch is *doing*)
>>   - Format should be something like "Bug 123456 - Add a null check to
>>   XYZ to avoid a crash. r=somebody"
>>
>>
>> And also if there is a specific sequence/dependency you want to checkin
>> the
>> patches it would help also a lot  if you could make a short comment in the
>> Bug like please checkin part x then patch y or like first bug 123 then
>> this
>> bug and then bug 8910.
>>
>> This would help us a lot :)
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> - Tomcat
>>
>>
> ___
> 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

Re: Checkin-needed requests - Please include complete information in the commit message :)

[Ryan VanderMeulen]

FWIW, there's also an MDN page that documents a lot of this as well:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mercurial/Using_Mercurial#How_can_I_generate_a_patch_for_somebody_else_to_check-in_for_me.3F

-Ryan

On 7/8/2016 2:32 AM, Carsten Book wrote:

Hi,

someone might not know that doing checkins for checkin-needed request is
not automated yet and completely a fully human task :) (no we Sheriffs are
not bots ;)

It would help us a lot if a checkin needed request would contain complete
Author/Patch information like:


   - Author (use the information from their Bugzilla account if needed)
   with Name *and *Emailadress.
   - Bug number
   - Commit message (keeping in mind that the commit message should be a
   brief description of what the patch is *doing*)
  - Format should be something like "Bug 123456 - Add a null check to
  XYZ to avoid a crash. r=somebody"


And also if there is a specific sequence/dependency you want to checkin the
patches it would help also a lot  if you could make a short comment in the
Bug like please checkin part x then patch y or like first bug 123 then this
bug and then bug 8910.

This would help us a lot :)

Thanks!

- Tomcat



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

Checkin-needed requests - Please include complete information in the commit message :)

[Carsten Book]

Hi,

someone might not know that doing checkins for checkin-needed request is
not automated yet and completely a fully human task :) (no we Sheriffs are
not bots ;)

It would help us a lot if a checkin needed request would contain complete
Author/Patch information like:


   - Author (use the information from their Bugzilla account if needed)
   with Name *and *Emailadress.
   - Bug number
   - Commit message (keeping in mind that the commit message should be a
   brief description of what the patch is *doing*)
  - Format should be something like "Bug 123456 - Add a null check to
  XYZ to avoid a crash. r=somebody"


And also if there is a specific sequence/dependency you want to checkin the
patches it would help also a lot  if you could make a short comment in the
Bug like please checkin part x then patch y or like first bug 123 then this
bug and then bug 8910.

This would help us a lot :)

Thanks!

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