Re: Super-review, what shall we do with you?

2012-12-07 Thread Dave Townsend
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

Re: Super-review, what shall we do with you?

2012-12-04 Thread L. David Baron
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

Re: Super-review, what shall we do with you?

2012-12-01 Thread Neil
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

Re: Super-review, what shall we do with you?

2012-12-01 Thread Gregory Szorc
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

Re: Super-review, what shall we do with you?

2012-12-01 Thread Justin Dolske
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

Re: Super-review, what shall we do with you?

2012-11-26 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
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.

Re: Super-review, what shall we do with you?

2012-11-25 Thread Robert Kaiser
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

Re: Super-review, what shall we do with you?

2012-11-25 Thread L. David Baron
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

Re: Super-review, what shall we do with you?

2012-11-25 Thread Gregory Szorc
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

Re: Super-review, what shall we do with you?

2012-11-24 Thread Justin Dolske
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