On 03/11/2017 05:23 AM, smaug wrote:
> On 03/10/2017 12:59 AM, Bobby Holley wrote:
>> At a high level, I think the goals here are good.
>> However, the tooling here needs to be top-notch for this to work, and the
>> standard approach of flipping on an MVP and dealing with the rest in
>> followup bugs isn't going to be acceptable for something so critical to our
>> productivity as landing code. The only reason more developers aren't
>> complaining about the MozReview+autoland workflow right now is that it's
>> The busiest and most-productive developers (ehsan, bz, dbaron, etc) tend
>> not to pay attention to new workflows because they have too much else on
>> their plate. The onus needs to be on the team deploying this to have the
>> highest-volume committers using the new system happily and voluntarily
>> before it becomes mandatory. That probably means that the team should not
>> have any deadline-oriented incentives to ship it before it's ready.
>> Also, getting rid of "r+ with comments" is a non-starter.
> FWIW, with my reviewer hat on, I think that is not true, _assuming_ there is a reliable interdiff for patches.
> And not only MozReview patches but for all the patches. (and MozReview interdiff isn't reliable, it has dataloss issues so it
> doesn't really count there.).
> I'd be ok to do a quick r+ if interdiff was working well.
But I could rephrase this differently. During the last couple of weeks I've been doing pretty much only reviews, again, so increasing reviewing time
significantly is a non-starter for me. If we can find more reviewers, great, if not, can we please figure out processes which make reviewing less
time consuming. I guess I'd wish positive answer to both these questions. (a quick r+ doesn't affect here much _if_ interdiff was working.)
Though, I do honestly think that our reviewing process would feel quite a bit better if everyone would always prioritize reviews over pretty much
everything else (some deadlines would be valid exceptions of this rule, then review queue could stay closed).
If that was happening, review requests might spread more evenly.
>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Mike Connor wrote:
>>> (please direct followups to dev-planning, cross-posting to governance,
>>> firefox-dev, dev-platform)
>>> Nearly 19 years after the creation of the Mozilla Project, commit access
>>> remains essentially the same as it has always been. We've evolved the
>>> vouching process a number of times, CVS has long since been replaced by
>>> Mercurial & others, and we've taken some positive steps in terms of
>>> securing the commit process. And yet we've never touched the core idea of
>>> granting developers direct commit access to our most important
>>> repositories. After a large number of discussions since taking ownership
>>> over commit policy, I believe it is time for Mozilla to change that
>>> Before I get into the meat of the current proposal, I would like to outline
>>> a set of key goals for any change we make. These goals have been informed
>>> by a set of stakeholders from across the project including the engineering,
>>> security, release and QA teams. It's inevitable that any significant
>>> change will disrupt longstanding workflows. As a result, it is critical
>>> that we are all aligned on the goals of the change.
>>> I've identified the following goals as critical for a responsible commit
>>> access policy:
>>> - Compromising a single individual's credentials must not be sufficient
>>> to land malicious code into our products.
>>> - Two-factor auth must be a requirement for all users approving or
>>> pushing a change.
>>> - The change that gets pushed must be the same change that was approved.
>>> - Broken commits must be rejected automatically as a part of the commit
>>> 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
>>> - Reviewers and any other approvers interact with the changeset as
>>> today (including ReviewBoard if preferred), with Bugzilla flags as
>>> 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 know this is a major change in practice from how we currently operate,
>>> and my ask is that we work together to understand the impact and concerns.
>>> If you find yourself disagreeing with the goals, let's have that discussion
>>> instead of arguing about the solution. If you agree with the goals, but
>>> not the solution, I'd love to hear alternative ideas for how we can achieve
>>> the outcomes outlined above.
>>> -- Mike
>>> dev-planning mailing list