WARNING: bugzilla "review granted" emails no longer contain review comments

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
34 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

WARNING: bugzilla "review granted" emails no longer contain review comments

L. David Baron
There is a regression in bugzilla.mozilla.org such that "review
granted", "feedback granted", etc., emails no longer contain the
comments made when granting the review.

This bug is tracked in:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1082887

Until this bug is fixed, if you get a "review granted" email with no
comments in it, you need to look at the bug to see what the comments
were, rather than assuming review was granted with no comments.

-David

--
๐„ž   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   ๐„‚
๐„ข   Mozilla                          https://www.mozilla.org/   ๐„‚
             Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
             What I was walling in or walling out,
             And to whom I was like to give offense.
               - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)

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

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WARNING: bugzilla "review granted" emails no longer contain review comments

Gregory Szorc-3
On 10/14/14 9:53 PM, L. David Baron wrote:

> There is a regression in bugzilla.mozilla.org such that "review
> granted", "feedback granted", etc., emails no longer contain the
> comments made when granting the review.
>
> This bug is tracked in:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1082887
>
> Until this bug is fixed, if you get a "review granted" email with no
> comments in it, you need to look at the bug to see what the comments
> were, rather than assuming review was granted with no comments.

Have we had a serious discussion about adding a "review granted [with
strings attached]" flag to help avoid ambiguity with reviewer intent? I
know I've misinterpreted some reviewers' wishes, and that was before
emails lacked context.

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

Re: WARNING: bugzilla "review granted" emails no longer contain review comments

Jeff Gilbert-2
r-? If it's not fit to land, and you're not confident that the required-for-r+ changes are clear, don't r+ it.
Just like 'you are not your code', you are not your r-'d patch.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregory Szorc" <[hidden email]>
To: "L. David Baron" <[hidden email]>, [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 10:22:25 PM
Subject: Re: WARNING: bugzilla "review granted" emails no longer contain review comments

On 10/14/14 9:53 PM, L. David Baron wrote:

> There is a regression in bugzilla.mozilla.org such that "review
> granted", "feedback granted", etc., emails no longer contain the
> comments made when granting the review.
>
> This bug is tracked in:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1082887
>
> Until this bug is fixed, if you get a "review granted" email with no
> comments in it, you need to look at the bug to see what the comments
> were, rather than assuming review was granted with no comments.

Have we had a serious discussion about adding a "review granted [with
strings attached]" flag to help avoid ambiguity with reviewer intent? I
know I've misinterpreted some reviewers' wishes, and that was before
emails lacked context.

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

Re: WARNING: bugzilla "review granted" emails no longer contain review comments

Andreas Tolfsen
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Jeff Gilbert <[hidden email]> wrote:
> r-? If it's not fit to land, and you're not confident that the required-for-r+ changes are clear, don't r+ it.

It seems quite common to grant a provisional r+ under the assumption
that some minor details are fixed up so that the r+ can be carried
forward without the reviewer having to revisit.
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WARNING: bugzilla "review granted" emails no longer contain review comments

Nicholas Alexander
In reply to this post by Jeff Gilbert-2
On 2014-10-15, 1:42 AM, Jeff Gilbert wrote:
> r-? If it's not fit to land, and you're not confident that the required-for-r+ changes are clear, don't r+ it.
> Just like 'you are not your code', you are not your r-'d patch.

There's two things here: the sting of an r-'d patch, and the time of the
re-review cycle.  Some people will deal better than others with the sting.

I get frustrated having to ask for a trivial re-review because it takes
time, keeps an open loop that I need to track, and makes me feel that I
can't be trusted to follow instructions.  It also doesn't match our
power and freedom: I can land code without review whenever I so choose!

Yours,
Nick

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

Re: WARNING: bugzilla "review granted" emails no longer contain review comments

Ralph Giles-7
In reply to this post by Jeff Gilbert-2
On 2014-10-15 1:42 AM, Jeff Gilbert wrote:

> r-? If it's not fit to land, and you're not confident that the required-for-r+ changes are clear, don't r+ it.
> Just like 'you are not your code', you are not your r-'d patch.

I sometimes just remove the r? flag entirely and ask to see it again,
especially with unfamiliar contributors. Indicated that that patch is in
the correct direction while still making it clear it's not ready to land.

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

Re: WARNING: bugzilla "review granted" emails no longer contain review comments

Gregory Szorc-3
On 10/15/14 9:44 AM, Ralph Giles wrote:
> On 2014-10-15 1:42 AM, Jeff Gilbert wrote:
>
>> r-? If it's not fit to land, and you're not confident that the required-for-r+ changes are clear, don't r+ it.
>> Just like 'you are not your code', you are not your r-'d patch.
>
> I sometimes just remove the r? flag entirely and ask to see it again,
> especially with unfamiliar contributors. Indicated that that patch is in
> the correct direction while still making it clear it's not ready to land.

And I change the r? to an f+ because I want to send a positive signal!
"cancelled" and "not granted" seem so harsh to me by comparison. After
all, sending positive feedback helps increase motivation and the
likelihood that someone will follow up, especially if that person is a
new contributor.

I think the inconsistent behaviors exhibited in this thread reinforce
the need for more clarity in the review flag values. Can you imagine how
confusing (and/or demotivating) this must be for a new contributor?
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WARNING: bugzilla "review granted" emails no longer contain review comments

Chris Peterson-12
In reply to this post by Ralph Giles-7
On 10/15/14 10:33 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>> I sometimes just remove the r? flag entirely and ask to see it again,
>> especially with unfamiliar contributors. Indicated that that patch is in
>> the correct direction while still making it clear it's not ready to land.
>
> And I change the r? to an f+ because I want to send a positive signal!
> "cancelled" and "not granted" seem so harsh to me by comparison. After
> all, sending positive feedback helps increase motivation and the
> likelihood that someone will follow up, especially if that person is a
> new contributor.

Compared to just unsetting r?, f+ also records that the reviewer looked
at the patch and thinks the patch is heading in the right direction.
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WARNING: bugzilla "review granted" emails no longer contain review comments

Steve Fink-4
In reply to this post by Nicholas Alexander
On 10/15/2014 07:44 AM, Nick Alexander wrote:

> On 2014-10-15, 1:42 AM, Jeff Gilbert wrote:
>> r-? If it's not fit to land, and you're not confident that the
>> required-for-r+ changes are clear, don't r+ it.
>> Just like 'you are not your code', you are not your r-'d patch.
>
> There's two things here: the sting of an r-'d patch, and the time of
> the re-review cycle.  Some people will deal better than others with
> the sting.
>
> I get frustrated having to ask for a trivial re-review because it
> takes time, keeps an open loop that I need to track, and makes me feel
> that I can't be trusted to follow instructions.  It also doesn't match
> our power and freedom: I can land code without review whenever I so
> choose!

+1. The whole "does giving r- mean you think the author is a bad person"
part is interesting and important and mostly irrelevant here. This is
totally a workflow question, and r- forces an extra step (waiting for a
re-review) that is unnecessary and unintended. The question at hand is
whether it would be worthwhile to track the "r+ but unfinished" state
via bugzilla flags, and if so, how to do it.

If we do it by adding an extra state to the review flag, would it be
expected that the author sets it to a full r+ after having completed the
changes? If so, that's also an extra step, though it is not a
synchronization point (the author doesn't need to wait on the reviewer),
so it's still far superior to r-. (It also means that bugzilla would
record r=author instead of r=reviewer, but maybe we could throw bugzilla
code at that problem.)

Alternatively, we could leave the review flag alone, and add an
additional per-attachment "needfixup?" flag. That's still an extra step,
and is also an extra step for the reviewer, but still no added
synchronization.

Similarly, we could make it a convention to (ab)use the existing
feedback flag for this: a reviewer would set the patch review+ but
feedback?author.

Or we could add the extra state to the review flag and just not bother
to change it to a full r+ when landing.

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

Re: WARNING: bugzilla "review granted" emails no longer contain review comments

Gregory Szorc-3
On 10/15/14 11:37 AM, Steve Fink wrote:

> On 10/15/2014 07:44 AM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>> On 2014-10-15, 1:42 AM, Jeff Gilbert wrote:
>>> r-? If it's not fit to land, and you're not confident that the
>>> required-for-r+ changes are clear, don't r+ it.
>>> Just like 'you are not your code', you are not your r-'d patch.
>>
>> There's two things here: the sting of an r-'d patch, and the time of
>> the re-review cycle.  Some people will deal better than others with
>> the sting.
>>
>> I get frustrated having to ask for a trivial re-review because it
>> takes time, keeps an open loop that I need to track, and makes me feel
>> that I can't be trusted to follow instructions.  It also doesn't match
>> our power and freedom: I can land code without review whenever I so
>> choose!
>
> +1. The whole "does giving r- mean you think the author is a bad person"
> part is interesting and important and mostly irrelevant here. This is
> totally a workflow question, and r- forces an extra step (waiting for a
> re-review) that is unnecessary and unintended. The question at hand is
> whether it would be worthwhile to track the "r+ but unfinished" state
> via bugzilla flags, and if so, how to do it.
>
> If we do it by adding an extra state to the review flag, would it be
> expected that the author sets it to a full r+ after having completed the
> changes? If so, that's also an extra step, though it is not a
> synchronization point (the author doesn't need to wait on the reviewer),
> so it's still far superior to r-. (It also means that bugzilla would
> record r=author instead of r=reviewer, but maybe we could throw bugzilla
> code at that problem.)
>
> Alternatively, we could leave the review flag alone, and add an
> additional per-attachment "needfixup?" flag. That's still an extra step,
> and is also an extra step for the reviewer, but still no added
> synchronization.
>
> Similarly, we could make it a convention to (ab)use the existing
> feedback flag for this: a reviewer would set the patch review+ but
> feedback?author.
>
> Or we could add the extra state to the review flag and just not bother
> to change it to a full r+ when landing.

I think it's worth mentioning Review Board, since presumably a lot of
people will soon be using that.

When you add a comment with Review Board, you have the option of
creating an "issue" for it. Think of "issues" as a mechanism to track
outstanding/unaddressed review comments that the reviewer wants fixed
before the code lands ("shipping" in Review Board parlance).

If you grant review but the review has open issues, Review Board's
status field will say something like "ship it after fixing issues" (I
can't remember the exact phrase). As soon as all the issues are closed
out, Review Board will simply say "ship it." IMO this helps with
avoiding ambiguity. And, it also helps people keep track of what needs
done on a patch. IMO this is far less prone to losing track of requested
changes buried in a mountain of plain text bug comments. Who knows how
many review comments have been forgotten because Bugzilla doesn't
aggregate them nicely.

As nice as that Review Board feature is, I believe Bugzilla will still
reflect all "ship its" as r+. If we had a "r+ with strings attached"
flag in Bugzilla, we could better synchronize Review Board state with
Bugzilla. We may add this feature to Bugzilla just so the Review Board
integration is better...

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

Re: WARNING: bugzilla "review granted" emails no longer contain review comments

Gavin Sharp-3
In reply to this post by Jeff Gilbert-2
"you are not your r-'d patch" is a fine stance to use with review
requesters that you are familiar with (and who are very familiar with
our processes), but you can't rely on it being adopted by e.g. new
contributors, or people used to slightly different processes.

As with anything, you need to take into account your audience, and
that means there is no single answer to "how should I communicate my
review feedback". Broadening the set of default options in Bugzilla
for communicating more nuanced feedback, which is what Gregory was
suggesting, could be helpful here.

Gavin


On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:42 AM, Jeff Gilbert <[hidden email]> wrote:

> r-? If it's not fit to land, and you're not confident that the required-for-r+ changes are clear, don't r+ it.
> Just like 'you are not your code', you are not your r-'d patch.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregory Szorc" <[hidden email]>
> To: "L. David Baron" <[hidden email]>, [hidden email]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 10:22:25 PM
> Subject: Re: WARNING: bugzilla "review granted" emails no longer contain review comments
>
> On 10/14/14 9:53 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>> There is a regression in bugzilla.mozilla.org such that "review
>> granted", "feedback granted", etc., emails no longer contain the
>> comments made when granting the review.
>>
>> This bug is tracked in:
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1082887
>>
>> Until this bug is fixed, if you get a "review granted" email with no
>> comments in it, you need to look at the bug to see what the comments
>> were, rather than assuming review was granted with no comments.
>
> Have we had a serious discussion about adding a "review granted [with
> strings attached]" flag to help avoid ambiguity with reviewer intent? I
> know I've misinterpreted some reviewers' wishes, and that was before
> emails lacked context.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev-planning mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
> _______________________________________________
> dev-planning mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WARNING: bugzilla "review granted" emails no longer contain review comments

Jim Porter
In reply to this post by Jeff Gilbert-2
On 10/15/2014 02:05 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> "you are not your r-'d patch" is a fine stance to use with review
> requesters that you are familiar with (and who are very familiar with
> our processes), but you can't rely on it being adopted by e.g. new
> contributors, or people used to slightly different processes.

I know it doesn't help as much given the Bugzilla issue that this thread
is about, but that's why I always write a positive comment when I r- a
patch from a new contributor. There's a big free-form text field right
near the r+/- dropdown, and I think all you need to do is provide some
encouragement when you write your review comments. I know that when I
was a new contributor to Mozilla, a simple "thank you" meant
overwhelmingly more than seeing an r+/r-.

I'm all for something like a "provisional r+", provided people use it to
mean "this patch is good, aside from a few small nits", but I'm also
worried that people would use it to mean "this patch isn't landable, but
also isn't *totally* wrong either" in an attempt to be more positive.
That just muddies the waters and makes it harder to know if "provisional
r+" means you need to re-request review before landing. Still, it's
probably better than the bad habit of removing the "r?" flag entirely,
which I would interpret as "I'm not an appropriate reviewer for this patch".

In short: I don't think we need a more "positive" form of r-; just write
some encouraging words if you're worried that a person might be saddened
by an r-.

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

Re: WARNING: bugzilla "review granted" emails no longer contain review comments

ISHIKAWA,chiaki
On 2014/10/16 5:08, Jim Porter wrote:

> In short: I don't think we need a more "positive" form of r-; just write
> some encouraging words if you're worried that a person might be saddened
> by an r-.
>
> - Jim

Maybe bugzilla can be modified to show a popup that says, "Say a postive
comment" when "r-" is selected.

Just a thought, but might be worth implementing...

TIA


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

Re: WARNING: bugzilla "review granted" emails no longer contain review comments

alta88[nntp]
In reply to this post by Jeff Gilbert-2
On 10/15/2014 01:05 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:

> "you are not your r-'d patch" is a fine stance to use with review
> requesters that you are familiar with (and who are very familiar with
> our processes), but you can't rely on it being adopted by e.g. new
> contributors, or people used to slightly different processes.
>
> As with anything, you need to take into account your audience, and
> that means there is no single answer to "how should I communicate my
> review feedback". Broadening the set of default options in Bugzilla
> for communicating more nuanced feedback, which is what Gregory was
> suggesting, could be helpful here.
>
> Gavin
>
>

If people are worried about sensitivity to r- I would suggest that's the
least of off-putting behaviors.  If there is any sort of retention of
contributors goal (anyone can attract them, once) then a number of basic
skills (dos and don'ts) should be identified, communicated, and required
of anyone having a reviewer role.  Since it's pretty much a linchpin in
a seemingly secondary Mozilla mission - engagement with (code) contributors.

For example, it's likely not recommended that a reviewer's very first
comment[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=792270#c18], in the
very first review encounter with a contributor, proceed like this:


Comment # 18 on Bug 792270 from Joshua Cranmer [:jcranmer] at 2014-10-11
13:43:59 PDT

..

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

Re: WARNING: bugzilla "review granted" emails no longer contain review comments

Philip Chee
On 17/10/2014 01:42, alta88[nntp] wrote:

> For example, it's likely not recommended that a reviewer's very first
> comment[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=792270#c18], in the
> very first review encounter with a contributor, proceed like this:
>
>
> Comment # 18 on Bug 792270 from Joshua Cranmer [:jcranmer] at 2014-10-11
> 13:43:59 PDT
>
> ..
>
> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

jcranmer++

Reviewer comments in the Chatzilla part of Bugzilla are rather more
pithy: "Thank you for playing, now go away".

Phil

--
Philip Chee <[hidden email]>, <[hidden email]>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WARNING: bugzilla "review granted" emails no longer contain review comments

mhoye
On 2014-10-17 8:16 AM, Philip Chee wrote:

> On 17/10/2014 01:42, alta88[nntp] wrote:
>
>> For example, it's likely not recommended that a reviewer's very first
>> comment[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=792270#c18], in the
>> very first review encounter with a contributor, proceed like this:
>>
>>
>> Comment # 18 on Bug 792270 from Joshua Cranmer [:jcranmer] at 2014-10-11
>> 13:43:59 PDT
>>
>> ..
>>
>> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
> jcranmer++
>
Absolutely not. What makes you think talking to a contributor like that
is ever OK?

FFS, alta88's been a contributor since March 2006. Look at these stats:

- Bugs filed     132
- Comments made     1792
- Assigned to     107
- Commented on     698
- Patches submitted     353
- Patches reviewed     76

... so maybe losing a contributor like that because somebody felt like
making a snarky remark isn't worth it.

Every contributor who gives up on Mozilla because they had a shitty
interaction in a bug or forum is taking their time and effort with them,
and it's not like we've got a ton of spare time and effort lying around
here.


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

Re: WARNING: bugzilla "review granted" emails no longer contain review comments

Gijs Kruitbosch ("Hannibal")
In reply to this post by Philip Chee
On 17/10/2014 05:16, Philip Chee wrote:

> On 17/10/2014 01:42, alta88[nntp] wrote:
>
>> For example, it's likely not recommended that a reviewer's very first
>> comment[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=792270#c18], in the
>> very first review encounter with a contributor, proceed like this:
>>
>>
>> Comment # 18 on Bug 792270 from Joshua Cranmer [:jcranmer] at 2014-10-11
>> 13:43:59 PDT
>>
>> ..
>>
>> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
>
> jcranmer++
>
> Reviewer comments in the Chatzilla part of Bugzilla are rather more
> pithy: "Thank you for playing, now go away".
>
> Phil

As a peer for chatzilla, I take issue with your implication that we do
not currently welcome contributors (even if I'm aware that some
interactions in the past may be suspect).

The comment cited above (from a different product/component) is recent.
Do you have particular recent ChatZilla bugs in mind where contributors
have had questionable review comments? This would be surprising, and
something I'd want to fix.

~ Gijs

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

Re: WARNING: bugzilla "review granted" emails no longer contain review comments

Gavin Sharp-3
In reply to this post by Philip Chee
mhoye already said it, but I'll say it too: Bugzilla interactions that
denigrate well-meaning contributors, like the one in that example, are
not acceptable and certainly shouldn't be celebrated. I think an
apology is in order.

Gavin

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Philip Chee <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 17/10/2014 01:42, alta88[nntp] wrote:
>
>> For example, it's likely not recommended that a reviewer's very first
>> comment[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=792270#c18], in the
>> very first review encounter with a contributor, proceed like this:
>>
>>
>> Comment # 18 on Bug 792270 from Joshua Cranmer [:jcranmer] at 2014-10-11
>> 13:43:59 PDT
>>
>> ..
>>
>> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
>
> jcranmer++
>
> Reviewer comments in the Chatzilla part of Bugzilla are rather more
> pithy: "Thank you for playing, now go away".
>
> Phil
>
> --
> Philip Chee <[hidden email]>, <[hidden email]>
> http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
> Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
> oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
> _______________________________________________
> dev-planning mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WARNING: bugzilla "review granted" emails no longer contain review comments

Joshua Cranmer ๐Ÿง
In reply to this post by Philip Chee
On 10/17/2014 11:46 AM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> mhoye already said it, but I'll say it too: Bugzilla interactions that
> denigrate well-meaning contributors, like the one in that example, are
> not acceptable and certainly shouldn't be celebrated. I think an
> apology is in order.

The context of that statement was trimmed by the author. In this case,
Alta88 (not a new contributor but one of several years) had made a
comment to the effect that "Quirks mode is no longer present in today's
browsers." I had trimmed the quote to that statement and replied with
said text, and then clarified with "it still matters." I then later gave
a fuller reply to the patch. My intention was never more than to say
"no, your information is wrong," and I certainly never intended it to be
insulting. In the interest of fairness, it is also worth noting that
roughly concurrently Alta88 had taken the issue to be far more uncivil
to developers.

--
Joshua Cranmer
Thunderbird and DXR developer
Source code archรฆologist

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

Re: WARNING: bugzilla "review granted" emails no longer contain review comments

Jim Porter
In reply to this post by Philip Chee
I don't really feel like posting this publicly, but alta88 is anything
but a "well-meaning contributor" and is habitually abusive to others.
Seeing alta88 complain about someone being negative/dismissive is the
height of comedy.

At least from my perspective, the only reason I haven't pushed to have
alta88's Bugzilla account disabled is that they primarily work in the
RSS submodule of Thunderbird, where only a couple of people even bother
to venture. Even then, it took ages to get alta88 to provide even
remotely-positive contributions to Thunderbird.

To be completely blunt, I'd rather see alta88 ousted from the project
because then I wouldn't have to play diplomat whenever they get into a
slapfight with another volunteer contributor. Usually, I just try to
ignore alta88 because I'd rather not to waste my time on Bugzilla drama,
but sometimes I get roped in anyway.

- Jim

On 10/17/2014 11:46 AM, Gavin Sharp wrote:

> mhoye already said it, but I'll say it too: Bugzilla interactions that
> denigrate well-meaning contributors, like the one in that example, are
> not acceptable and certainly shouldn't be celebrated. I think an
> apology is in order.
>
> Gavin
>
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Philip Chee <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 17/10/2014 01:42, alta88[nntp] wrote:
>>
>>> For example, it's likely not recommended that a reviewer's very first
>>> comment[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=792270#c18], in the
>>> very first review encounter with a contributor, proceed like this:
>>>
>>>
>>> Comment # 18 on Bug 792270 from Joshua Cranmer [:jcranmer] at 2014-10-11
>>> 13:43:59 PDT
>>>
>>> ..
>>>
>>> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
>>
>> jcranmer++
>>
>> Reviewer comments in the Chatzilla part of Bugzilla are rather more
>> pithy: "Thank you for playing, now go away".
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> --
>> Philip Chee <[hidden email]>, <[hidden email]>
>> http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
>> Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
>> oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
>> _______________________________________________
>> dev-planning mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning

_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
12