On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 09:33:15PM -0500, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Sure. And the "r+ with these changes, and feel free to land, but I want to
> see the interdiff" mode is supported with Autoland because the interdiff
> would be available in mozreview post-facto, as you note.
Note that if /other/ ch
On 1/23/16 2:41 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
FWIW, option 3 is basically my usual workflow
Option 3, or option 2?
Just to recap, option 3 is that I write patches for bug A and bug B in
that order in my tree (A, then B) and ask for review on both. They are
independent. I get review on B first,
On 1/23/16 1:20 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
While MozReview defaults to submitting all pushed commits for review, you
can override these defaults to pick a) any single commit b) a range of
commits at the bottom c) middle or d) top of the series.
OK, but you said people shouldn't be pushing cherry-
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 1/22/16 3:52 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>>> >
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>
>> > On 1/22/16 3:52 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>> >
>> >> I would say that pushing cherry-picked commits for review tha
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
> > On 1/22/16 3:52 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> >
> >> I would say that pushing cherry-picked commits for review that depend on
> >> other commits not in the commit's ancestry is just
On 2016-01-23 1:20 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 1/22/16 3:52 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
I would say that pushing cherry-picked commits for review that depend on
other commits not in the commit's ancestry is just wrong. If you pushed
this to
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> IMO the right place for this checkbox is in the review request, which puts
> the
> control in the right place: the patch author.
>
I agree we need an author-set flag. I like mconnor's suggestion for a
"land?" flag or similar.
I also like t
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 6:39 AM, Gijs Kruitbosch
wrote:
> On 22/01/2016 20:52, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>
>> I would say that pushing cherry-picked commits for review that depend on
>> other commits not in the commit's ancestry is just wrong. If you pushed
>> this to Try, it would fail. So why are yo
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 1/22/16 3:52 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>
>> I would say that pushing cherry-picked commits for review that depend on
>> other commits not in the commit's ancestry is just wrong. If you pushed
>> this to Try, it would fail. So why are you p
Following up in this. We're not the first people to have autoland, so is
there some reason
not to simply copy what others do here. Specifically, here's the Chromium
commitbot
behavior: https://www.chromium.org/developers/testing/commit-queue
Current process for the user
1. Upload a review to r
IMO the right place for this checkbox is in the review request, which puts
the
control in the right place: the patch author.
-Ekr
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Dave Townsend
wrote:
> Should we just add a "and land it" checkbox to the review page, maybe
> disabled if there are still open iss
On 22/01/2016 20:52, Gregory Szorc wrote:
I would say that pushing cherry-picked commits for review that depend on
other commits not in the commit's ancestry is just wrong. If you pushed
this to Try, it would fail. So why are you pushing a "bad" commit/tree for
review? If your commits depend on s
13 matches
Mail list logo
