Re: Clarifications needed to 'Intent to ship' process

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:33 PM, smaug wrote: > On 04/26/2016 01:47 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > >> On 2016-04-26 1:02 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:52:02PM -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >>> On 4/25/16 10:34 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > Don't we

Re: Clarifications needed to 'Intent to ship' process

On 04/26/2016 10:31 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: On 2016-04-25 10:58 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: That said, note that a bunch of the items above lie somewhat out of a specific module, so it's not clear to me that we want intent-to-ship OKs to be module-specific. Yeah, a bunch of stuff definitely

Re: Clarifications needed to 'Intent to ship' process

On 04/26/2016 01:47 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: On 2016-04-26 1:02 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:52:02PM -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 4/25/16 10:34 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: Don't we already have that with superreviewers? Kinda, sorta. (How outdated is that list, btw?)

Re: Clarifications needed to 'Intent to ship' process

I'd also love to take this opportunity to remind everyone, especially our newer contributors and developers, to be sure to add the "dev-doc-needed" keyword to the appropriate bugs for any changes which should include updates to documentation on MDN. See

Re: Clarifications needed to 'Intent to ship' process

On 4/26/16 1:02 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: Shouldn't we just kind of repurpose the superreviewers, update the list, and keep it fresh? I think that would be pretty reasonable, yes. -Boris ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org

Re: Clarifications needed to 'Intent to ship' process

On 2016-04-26 1:02 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:52:02PM -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> On 4/25/16 10:34 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: >>> Don't we already have that with superreviewers? >> >> Kinda, sorta. >> >>> (How outdated is that list, btw?) >> >> Quite. If we're talking

Re: Clarifications needed to 'Intent to ship' process

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:52:02PM -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 4/25/16 10:34 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > >Don't we already have that with superreviewers? > > Kinda, sorta. > > >(How outdated is that list, btw?) > > Quite. If we're talking about >

Re: Clarifications needed to 'Intent to ship' process

On 4/25/16 10:34 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: Don't we already have that with superreviewers? Kinda, sorta. (How outdated is that list, btw?) Quite. If we're talking about https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/reviewers/ then of the 30 people on the list, I would say: * 10

Re: Clarifications needed to 'Intent to ship' process

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 10:31:06AM +0800, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2016-04-25 10:58 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > That said, note that a bunch of the items above lie somewhat out of a > > specific module, so it's not clear to me that we want intent-to-ship OKs > > to be module-specific. > > Yeah,

Re: Clarifications needed to 'Intent to ship' process

On 2016-04-25 10:58 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > That said, note that a bunch of the items above lie somewhat out of a > specific module, so it's not clear to me that we want intent-to-ship OKs > to be module-specific. Yeah, a bunch of stuff definitely crosses multiple module boundaries, so I think

Re: Clarifications needed to 'Intent to ship' process

On 4/25/16 1:47 AM, Jet Villegas wrote: 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

Re: Clarifications needed to 'Intent to ship' process

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