1.5.0.x and l10n check-ins still not settling

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

1.5.0.x and l10n check-ins still not settling

Axel Hecht
Hi,

I just wanted to post a more detailed explanation on why I run errand
and cancel approval-l10n requests for 1.5.0.x.

Fact is, we have recently found out that there are different
expectations on how that should work between me, QA and security. That
is nothing that cannot be solved, but we're lacking some communication
on the topic, which we'll hopefully get to end of this month.

Once I have a better idea on how what can when land on a security
branch, I'll update you with a post here.

Right now, I'm just cleaning up the queue. (Well, ok, I - some, which,
independent of what we come up with, are highly unlikely to make it anyway)

Axel
_______________________________________________
dev-l10n mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-l10n
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 1.5.0.x and l10n check-ins still not settling

knocte
Axel Hecht escribió:

> Hi,
>
> I just wanted to post a more detailed explanation on why I run errand
> and cancel approval-l10n requests for 1.5.0.x.
>
> Fact is, we have recently found out that there are different
> expectations on how that should work between me, QA and security. That
> is nothing that cannot be solved, but we're lacking some communication
> on the topic, which we'll hopefully get to end of this month.
>
> Once I have a better idea on how what can when land on a security
> branch, I'll update you with a post here.
>
> Right now, I'm just cleaning up the queue. (Well, ok, I - some, which,
> independent of what we come up with, are highly unlikely to make it anyway)


Hello Axel. Just a question that is related with this topic:

It seems that it's not clear at all if this kind of corrections are
intended to be landed on the 1.5.x branch or not.

Firstly, in a comment on bug #316781 [1] (which is not a security or
critical bug) you say:

"Please re-request approval for 1.5.1 once we have 1.5 out the door,
we'd likely want to take it then."

And, on the other hand, you cancel all approvals now and in other bug
(#323207 [2]) you use this argument:

"I don't think this is security release material."

Please, state or not if this kind of mispelling/cosmetical fixes are
intended to be submitted and, if they are not to, just tell us to focus
on the trunk.

Thanks very much,

        Andrés G. Aragoneses [ knocte ]

--

[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=316781
[2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=323207
_______________________________________________
dev-l10n mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-l10n
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 1.5.0.x and l10n check-ins still not settling

Axel Hecht
Andrés G. Aragoneses wrote:

> Axel Hecht escribió:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just wanted to post a more detailed explanation on why I run errand
>> and cancel approval-l10n requests for 1.5.0.x.
>>
>> Fact is, we have recently found out that there are different
>> expectations on how that should work between me, QA and security. That
>> is nothing that cannot be solved, but we're lacking some communication
>> on the topic, which we'll hopefully get to end of this month.
>>
>> Once I have a better idea on how what can when land on a security
>> branch, I'll update you with a post here.
>>
>> Right now, I'm just cleaning up the queue. (Well, ok, I - some, which,
>> independent of what we come up with, are highly unlikely to make it anyway)
>
>
> Hello Axel. Just a question that is related with this topic:
>
> It seems that it's not clear at all if this kind of corrections are
> intended to be landed on the 1.5.x branch or not.
>
> Firstly, in a comment on bug #316781 [1] (which is not a security or
> critical bug) you say:
>
> "Please re-request approval for 1.5.1 once we have 1.5 out the door,
> we'd likely want to take it then."
>
> And, on the other hand, you cancel all approvals now and in other bug
> (#323207 [2]) you use this argument:
>
> "I don't think this is security release material."
>
> Please, state or not if this kind of mispelling/cosmetical fixes are
> intended to be submitted and, if they are not to, just tell us to focus
> on the trunk.
>

After some recent phone calls with dveditz, I think that we're not going
to take cosmetics on the x.x.0.x releases. IIRC, I did some minor
difference in es-ES, as one of the cosmetics was actually a security
dialog, and there may have been hidden text that is required to
understand what that dialog does. Thus I just unset the request there,
while a-'ing the cosmetics at other places.

Does that answer your question?

Axel
_______________________________________________
dev-l10n mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-l10n