On 2014-04-24, 6:36 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
(I want to avoid entangling the dom/webidl plan with this discussion,
which is why I forked the thread)
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com
<mailto:ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Following up on this, people asked us to not abuse the superreview
flag for
this purpose
If this is "abuse", doesn't that demonstrate that the super-review
policy is pretty much irrelevant to the modern world, and should be
changed or removed?
In my experience, different people have different ideas of what
super-review means. Some just ignore it completely, some adhere to the
definition that we have documented (an architecture level review) and
some seem to just ask superreview? as a higher level review of sorts
(they're probably confused by the name of the flag.) Going through our
hg log a few months back, a good number of sr=<nick> flags in the commit
messages are actually from people on the list of super-reviewers, and
there are some examples where other names appear there too.
Also, this topic seems to come up every few years. :-)
This rule seems like a textbook use for the sr? flag, aside from the
fact that the reviewers must be DOM peers and not people from [1]. But
that list is pretty out of date - there are several people who haven't
touched Gecko in over 3 years, and our WebAPI tech lead isn't on the list.
FWIW I'm not a DOM peer either. :P
It seems like we should either update the list, or remove it.
I think there is still some value in the idea of an architecture level
review at least for people who are aware of our review policy, but I
agree that updating the list probably makes sense. IIRC the last times
when this was brought up people agreed that we should update the list,
but nobody ended up doing the work.
Cheers,
Ehsan
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
