Re: The future of commit access policy for core Firefox

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 5:14 PM, L. David Baron <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thursday 2017-03-09 16:53 -0500, Mike Connor wrote:
> > I've identified the following goals as critical for a responsible commit
> > access policy:
> ...
> >    - The change that gets pushed must be the same change that was
> approved.
>
> I'm curious what this goal means.  In particular, does it mean that
> you're trying to end "review+ if you make the following changes",
> and require that reviewers re-review the revisions no matter what?
>
> (If it does mean that, then that's a substantial increase on
> reviewer load; if it doesn't, then I'm curious what definition of
> "the same" you're using.)
>
> > In order to achieve these goals, I propose that we commit to making the
> > following changes to all Firefox product repositories:
> >
> >
> >    - Direct commit access to repositories will be strictly limited to
> >    sheriffs and a subset of release engineering.
> >       - Any direct commits by these individuals will be limited to fixing
> >       bustage that automation misses and handling branch merges.
> >    - All other changes will go through an autoland-based workflow.
> >       - Developers commit to a staging repository, with scripting that
> >       connects the changeset to a Bugzilla attachment, and integrates
> > with review
> >       flags.
> >       - Reviewers and any other approvers interact with the changeset as
> >       today (including ReviewBoard if preferred), with Bugzilla flags as
> the
> >       canonical source of truth.
> >       - Upon approval, the changeset will be pushed into autoland.
> >       - If the push is successful, the change is merged to
> mozilla-central,
> >       and the bug updated.
>
> I'm curious if this will mean that ReviewBoard will be required, or
> if it will still be a way to use attachment-based workflows.  (I ask
> this because I still consider the ReviewBoard UI unacceptable for
> changes that are likely to require re-review.  See
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1285874#c20 for my form
> response on the topic, although I've been a little less picky about
> requiring attachments in all cases lately, when I think things
> aren't likely to require multiple rounds of review.)
>

Mark Cote's team is currently working on enabling autoland from Bugzilla so
MozReview will not be required.

Lawrence