On 11/23/12 11:29, Dave Townsend wrote:
On 11/06/12 10:09, Dave Townsend wrote:
We've had a policy requiring super-review for certain kinds of patches
for a long time. It's changed a couple of times but the current policy
(http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/reviewers.html) primarily requires
On Tuesday 2012-12-04 10:00 +, Neil wrote:
Blake Kaplan wrote:
Neil n...@parkwaycc.co.uk wrote:
static const PRUnichar* kResetBackupDirectory =
NS_LITERAL_STRING(resetBackupDirectory).get();
Isn't this an anti-pattern anyway because the string (and the memory owned
by it) will
On a side note, what can we do about checking for unusually verbose or
inefficient constructs? Examples:
static const PRUnichar* kResetBackupDirectory =
NS_LITERAL_STRING(resetBackupDirectory).get();
This is technically incorrect on systems that don't support a 16-bit
char type (short
On 12/1/2012 4:28 PM, Neil wrote:
On a side note, what can we do about checking for unusually verbose or
inefficient constructs? Examples:
We could create a compiler plugin that examines the AST for known
badness. See bug 733873.
___
dev-platform
On 12/1/12 4:28 PM, Neil wrote:
On a side note, what can we do about checking for unusually verbose or
inefficient constructs? Examples:
I don't think this has anything to to with sr policy, nor should it.
Justin
___
dev-platform mailing list
On 2012-11-26 7:17 AM, smaug wrote:
As a reviewer and someone who cares about quality, this annoys me
because I know
it is something that could largely be solved through decent automation
and tools.
Yes. We certainly should have at least coding style checker, and uuid
update checker.
Justin Dolske schrieb:
I think we should consider jettisoning/rewriting that part of the
policy. It doesn't match what we've been doing in reality(*)
Yes, that's why we almost f***ed up 17.0 and needed to do a last-minute
reversion of patches that changed IIDs while on beta, for example.
If
On Monday 2012-11-26 04:21 +0100, Robert Kaiser wrote:
Justin Dolske schrieb:
I think we should consider jettisoning/rewriting that part of the
policy. It doesn't match what we've been doing in reality(*)
Yes, that's why we almost f***ed up 17.0 and needed to do a
last-minute reversion of
On 11/25/12 7:29 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Monday 2012-11-26 04:21 +0100, Robert Kaiser wrote:
Justin Dolske schrieb:
I think we should consider jettisoning/rewriting that part of the
policy. It doesn't match what we've been doing in reality(*)
Yes, that's why we almost f***ed up 17.0 and
On 11/6/12 10:09 AM, Dave Townsend wrote:
We've had a policy requiring super-review for certain kinds of patches
for a long time. It's changed a couple of times but the current policy
(http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/reviewers.html) primarily requires
super-review for any patch that introduces or
10 matches
Mail list logo