Mike Hommey wrote:
the biggest number of changesets pushed by someone without a backout in the
last 25271 changesets is 126.
But what's their Try usage like?
--
Warning: May contain traces of nuts.
___
dev-platform mailing list
On 2015-04-22 8:02 AM, Julien Wajsberg wrote:
Inbound bustage should not happen. Try is not a waste of time. The time
you wait for your build result... well you can do something else during
that time, right? If you're really confident your work won't break
anything then you'll likely only wait a
On 2015/04/22 22:15, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Note that it's not just the turn around time that can become an issue.
For me personally the reasons I choose to not use the try server are:
1) If I have ~20 unlanded patches in my queue (which is normal for my
workflow on an average day), I need to
Bobby Holley schrieb:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Nick Fitzgerald nfitzger...@mozilla.com
wrote:
And this can surely be done via private channels, without public shaming
and the potential negatives people have listed elsewhere in the thread,
right?
How, exactly?I want the ability
On 22/04/2015 01:26, Mike Hommey wrote:
Here are a few crude stats, gathered over the last 25271 changesets,
assuming my pattern matching worked properly:
- 1438 changesets were backed out (~5.7%)
Thank you for some stats, which is clearly better than no stats at all!
(Like everyone else who
Le 22/04/2015 13:13, Gijs Kruitbosch a écrit :
On 22/04/2015 01:26, Mike Hommey wrote:
Here are a few crude stats, gathered over the last 25271 changesets,
assuming my pattern matching worked properly:
- 1438 changesets were backed out (~5.7%)
Thank you for some stats, which is clearly
then it's fine to land it on m-i without try.
Maybe because I usually work on core, and such confidence is hard to reach
there, but I'd like to think at least a try run that check if the patch
builds on all platform and a full test run on at least one platform is not
too much sacrifice of ones
On 2015-04-21 12:20 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/21/2015 06:07 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:39 AM, jmath...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 21, 2015
On 4/21/2015 12:50 PM, Andrew Halberstadt wrote:
This could be effective, but if not implemented with care it could
also be very de-motivating, especially for a well-intentioned
contributor.
Is this really an issue though, given the time and effort required to
earn sufficient commit access
On 21/04/15 02:41 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
On 4/21/15 11:27 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
I agree that it shouldn't be 10%. Hopefully once we have the autolander
this will be a non-issue.
It would be a huge help if someone made a little tool which would show
you how often one specific person
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 03:11:36PM -0400, Andrew Halberstadt wrote:
On 21/04/15 03:02 PM, Aaron Klotz wrote:
On 4/21/2015 12:50 PM, Andrew Halberstadt wrote:
This could be effective, but if not implemented with care it could
also be very de-motivating, especially for a well-intentioned
On 21/04/15 03:02 PM, Aaron Klotz wrote:
On 4/21/2015 12:50 PM, Andrew Halberstadt wrote:
This could be effective, but if not implemented with care it could
also be very de-motivating, especially for a well-intentioned
contributor.
Is this really an issue though, given the time and effort
On 4/21/2015 1:11 PM, Andrew Halberstadt wrote:
On 21/04/15 03:02 PM, Aaron Klotz wrote:
On 4/21/2015 12:50 PM, Andrew Halberstadt wrote:
This could be effective, but if not implemented with care it could
also be very de-motivating, especially for a well-intentioned
contributor.
Is this
On 21/04/2015 08:25, Gabor Krizsanits wrote:
Maybe because I usually work on core, and such confidence is hard to reach
there, but I'd like to think at least a try run that check if the patch
builds on all platform and a full test run on at least one platform is not
too much sacrifice of ones
On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 3:03:37 AM UTC-5, Gabriele Svelto wrote:
On 21/04/2015 08:25, Gabor Krizsanits wrote:
Maybe because I usually work on core, and such confidence is hard to reach
there, but I'd like to think at least a try run that check if the patch
builds on all platform and a
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:39 AM, jmath...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 3:03:37 AM UTC-5, Gabriele Svelto wrote:
On 21/04/2015 08:25, Gabor Krizsanits wrote:
Maybe because I usually work on core, and such confidence is hard to
reach
there, but I'd like to think at
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org
wrote:
Right. Someone just needs to collect the data *privately* and then notify
people or take other remedial action.
Personally, I'd much rather keep an eye on the leaderboard and police
myself, rather than waiting for
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:06 PM, L. David Baron dba...@dbaron.org wrote:
I think it would be good to have metrics on rates at which different
people break inbound, partly because I think the system works better
when people use a similar amount of care to each other (as opposed
to some people
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Bobby Holley bobbyhol...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not about making mistakes - it's about being mis-calibrated with
respect to the rest of the development community. And it's not about
shaming - it's about making people (both the developer and others) aware of
I think it would be good to have metrics on rates at which different
people break inbound, partly because I think the system works better
when people use a similar amount of care to each other (as opposed
to some people being less careful and breaking inbound a lot, and
others being very careful
On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 2:11:43 PM UTC-5, Andrew Halberstadt wrote:
On 21/04/15 03:02 PM, Aaron Klotz wrote:
On 4/21/2015 12:50 PM, Andrew Halberstadt wrote:
This could be effective, but if not implemented with care it could
also be very de-motivating, especially for a
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 03:11:36PM -0400, Andrew Halberstadt wrote:
On 21/04/15 03:02 PM, Aaron Klotz wrote:
On 4/21/2015 12:50 PM, Andrew Halberstadt wrote:
This could be effective, but if not implemented with care it could
also be very de-motivating, especially for a well-intentioned
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Andrew Halberstadt
ahalberst...@mozilla.com wrote:
But contributors aside, it could be de-motivating for employees too. If I
break inbound, I already feel really bad about it.. no need to rub it in my
face :). If there are employees who are blatantly abusing
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Mike Hoye mh...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 2015-04-21 4:56 PM, jmath...@mozilla.com wrote:
I think we're being bit too sensitive here, I'm sure we can all handle a
little public shaming on stuff like this.
We should not do this. There aren't a lot of things that
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 03:31:28PM -0700, Bobby Holley wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org
wrote:
Right. Someone just needs to collect the data *privately* and then notify
people or take other remedial action.
Personally, I'd much rather keep
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Ryan VanderMeulen rya...@gmail.com wrote:
Seeing how often I get pushback from people over backouts, I wouldn't agree
with this premise, FWIW.
People, remember to *thank* the person who backs out your code.
Just like you should thank people for finding your
On 4/21/15 5:26 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
...
- the biggest backout rate for those authors is 48.8%.
The suspense is killing me. Is it Ehsan?! ;-) ;-)
Justin
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:39 PM, Justin Dolske dol...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 4/21/15 5:26 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
...
- the biggest backout rate for those authors is 48.8%.
The suspense is killing me. Is it Ehsan?! ;-) ;-)
Clearly not:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Mike Hommey
I personally have no objection to my name being publicly visible on the
list. I don't care either way about the ability to see other people's
names, as long as I know where I stand.
Oh, and if we want to remain anonymous, I'm sure we can all be randomly
affected city names or whatever. This will
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Nick Fitzgerald nfitzger...@mozilla.com
wrote:
And this can surely be done via private channels, without public shaming
and the potential negatives people have listed elsewhere in the thread,
right?
How, exactly?I want the ability to see where I match up
On 4/21/2015 4:56 PM, jmath...@mozilla.com wrote:
I think we're being bit too sensitive here, I'm sure we can all handle a little
public shaming on stuff like this. :) If you find yourself on the top of a list
like list, and you feel a bit bad about it, good. Learn from it, push to try
more
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Bobby Holley bobbyhol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Nick Fitzgerald nfitzger...@mozilla.com
wrote:
And this can surely be done via private channels, without public
shaming and the potential negatives people have listed elsewhere in
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 02:50:43PM -0400, Andrew Halberstadt wrote:
On 21/04/15 02:41 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
On 4/21/15 11:27 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
I agree that it shouldn't be 10%. Hopefully once we have the autolander
this will be a non-issue.
It would be a huge help if someone made
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 09:26:12AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 02:50:43PM -0400, Andrew Halberstadt wrote:
On 21/04/15 02:41 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
On 4/21/15 11:27 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
I agree that it shouldn't be 10%. Hopefully once we have the autolander
On 2015-04-21 3:30 PM, Aaron Klotz wrote:
Sure, a valid point. A public shaming is not necessary.
I think people may have misunderstood what I suggested. How about a
tool that lets you login through Persona and then tells you (and only
you) how well you're doing? :-)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/21/2015 06:07 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:39 AM, jmath...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 3:03:37 AM UTC-5, Gabriele Svelto
wrote:
On 21/04/2015 08:25, Gabor Krizsanits wrote:
Maybe because I
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/21/2015 06:07 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:39 AM, jmath...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 3:03:37 AM UTC-5, Gabriele Svelto
Some exciting statistics on these things if you're interested:
http://futurama.theautomatedtester.co.uk/
I'll leave it to you to draw whatever conclusions you want.
-Ryan
On 4/20/2015 4:54 PM, Aaron Klotz wrote:
Do I have terrible timing when it comes to landing patches, or has
inbound been
I think perhaps part of the question is what the purpose of m-i versus try
is.
My general algorithm is that you should get your patch to the point
where you have tested it locally and have reasonable confidence that there
are no portability issues and then it's fine to land it on m-i without try.
39 matches
Mail list logo
