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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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