, dev-g...@lists.mozilla.org
Cc: "Sheriffs"
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 4:54:29 PM
Subject: Update on sheriff-assisted checkin-needed bugs
As many of you are aware, the sheriff team has been assisting with landing
checkin-needed bugs for some time now. However, we've also had to deal
t;
, dev-g...@lists.mozilla.org
Cc: "Sheriffs"
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 4:54:29 PM
Subject: Update on sheriff-assisted checkin-needed bugs
As many of you are aware, the sheriff team has been assisting with landing
checkin-needed bugs for some time now. However, we've also had
Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-05-21, 5:15 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
On 5/21/14, 1:51 PM, Mike Conley wrote:
Or, alternatively, attempt to automate this with Autoland
(https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=657828).
Is anyone actively working on Autoland? Rail had been working on
Autola
On 2014-05-21, 5:15 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
On 5/21/14, 1:51 PM, Mike Conley wrote:
Or, alternatively, attempt to automate this with Autoland
(https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=657828).
Is anyone actively working on Autoland? Rail had been working on
Autoland, but when I spoke wit
On 5/21/14, 1:51 PM, Mike Conley wrote:
Or, alternatively, attempt to automate this with Autoland
(https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=657828).
Is anyone actively working on Autoland? Rail had been working on
Autoland, but when I spoke with him in 2013 Q4, I think he said he would
no
>> I try to mentor as many bugs as possible. My ideal workflow would be to
>> grant r+, suggest a try: string, and set checkin-needed in a single act,
>> without having to determine whether the contributor has try access and/or
>> editbugs. If we already have people scanning for checkin-needed and
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Steve Fink wrote:
> On Wed 21 May 2014 08:42:28 AM PDT, Ryan VanderMeulen wrote:
> > Level 1 - Try/User/Incubator Access
> > Because this is all it gives, this sort of access can be given out
> generously to anyone who would find it convenient when helping us or
>
On Wed 21 May 2014 08:42:28 AM PDT, Ryan VanderMeulen wrote:
> Level 1 - Try/User/Incubator Access
> Because this is all it gives, this sort of access can be given out generously
> to anyone who would find it convenient when helping us or working on a
> developer's personal project, without worry
> One issue I often run into is that the contributor doesn't have access to
> try, and pushing it on their behalf disrupts the rhythm of the other things
> I'm doing.
>From http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/commit-access-policy/
Level 1 - Try/User/Incubator Access
Because this is all it gives, this
It's an extra interruption that's going to me make me marginally more
averse to mentoring bugs (in general, I would suggest that the mentee build
the try syntax using the syntax builder).
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:46 PM, David Burns wrote:
> It doesn't feel like a quick |hg qimport bz://12345
It doesn't feel like a quick |hg qimport bz://123456; hg qref -m "favourite try syntax>"; hg try| would really put a dent in a mentors
productivity. If someone has already put in the effort to update the bug
with try syntax why not just do 1 more step and push to try?
David
On 20/05/2014 19:33
Can we get a stopgap solution in the mean time?
How about this: If a sheriff comes across a checkin-needed bug without a
try push, _and_ the most-recent comment in the bug includes a try-chooser
string that the path author would have used if {s,}he had try access, the
sheriff can push to try on th
Autoland should solve that use case :-)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=657828
On 19 May 2014 22:01:25, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Try-from-bugzilla would be awesome!
/ Jonas
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
(Reducing the thread scope for the followup)
One issue I
Try-from-bugzilla would be awesome!
/ Jonas
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
> (Reducing the thread scope for the followup)
>
> One issue I often run into is that the contributor doesn't have access to
> try, and pushing it on their behalf disrupts the rhythm of the other thi
(Reducing the thread scope for the followup)
One issue I often run into is that the contributor doesn't have access to
try, and pushing it on their behalf disrupts the rhythm of the other things
I'm doing. If we go forward with this, can we also get some kind of
sheriff-assisted try push flag? Som
As many of you are aware, the sheriff team has been assisting with landing
checkin-needed bugs for some time now. However, we've also had to deal with the
fallout of a higher than average bustage frequency from them. As much as we
enjoy shooting ourselves in the foot, our team has decided that w
16 matches
Mail list logo
