On Jan 21, 2016, at 21:25, Richard Newman <rnew...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> Both of these behaviours are incompatible with reviewer-initiated landing. > > I've fallen on both sides of this particular fence; sometimes I want to > fire-and-forget a patch, and sometimes I still want to digest further after > getting review (or I know a piece of work is incomplete and further parts > will be forthcoming). > > Perhaps this needs an opt-in flag on the input side? > > "r?, and land it if you're happy" versus "r?, but I'll take care of landing"? I agree there can be ambiguity. I'd like to say that in the ideal world a reviewer can make a determination if something is suitable for landing. This optionally includes autoland looking at try results and only landing if green (or even "landing" to try first as part of the landing). But I know that's not perfect. This boils down to communicating readiness from author to reviewer. We could put something in the commit message to reflect unsuitability for landing. "DONTLAND" or some such. Perhaps we could leverage the feedback flag for indicating "don't land" as well. "f?gps." We know we need to integrate feedback flag support into MozReview... We could also invent a new commit message syntax with implications for autoland. "rl?gps" for "review + land." I'm just throwing out ideas here. But I feel somewhat strongly we should default to (or at least encourage through UI) "land by default" (at least in the long term) as it is the most streamlined workflow. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
