Hello, We would like to update the Thunderbird uplift template to the following. When the `approval-comm-beta`, `approval-comm-release`, or `approval-comm-esr128` flag is set to `?` on a Bugzilla patch attachment, this template should automatically be generated. Thank you, Corey --- [User impact if declined] - Provide details on how an end user would be impacted with or without this change. In addition to the Steps to Reproduce (STR), explain the deeper implications for users. [Is this code covered by automated tests?] - Options: Yes / No / Unknown. [Has the fix been verified in Daily? (or Beta for an ESR uplift?)] - Indicate whether the fix has been verified in a Daily or Beta build, and by whom (e.g., the reporter or QA). [Needs manual test from QA?] - Options: Yes / No. - If "Yes," include the steps to reproduce either by referencing an existing comment with STR or elaborating directly. [List of other uplifts needed] - If this patch depends on other changes not present on the target branch, list those dependencies here. - Ensure approval is also requested for dependent patches. [Risk to taking this patch] - Options: Low / Medium / High. - Provide a justification as to why the benefits of the uplift outweighs the associated risks. Examples: - Low: A one-line CSS change impacting only the settings page. - Medium: Due to code complexity and integration with other areas, there might be regressions in related functionality. - High: The patch involves complex changes with a high likelihood of fallout or regressions, which may require extensive manual testing or mitigation strategies. [Why is the change risky/not risky? (and alternatives if risky)] - If the change is risky, explain the potential impact. In other words, describe the potential negative impacts that could occur if the change leads to a regression. What mitigations were taken to reduce the risk? What alternative solutions were considered? [String changes made/needed] - Answer "none" if no string changes were made. - If there are string changes, add details and justification to help with l10n review.
Bug 1944400 Comment 0 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
Hello, We would like to update the Thunderbird uplift template to the following. When the `approval-comm-beta`, `approval-comm-release`, or `approval-comm-esr128` flag is set to `?` on a Bugzilla patch attachment, this template should automatically be generated. Thank you, Corey --- [User impact if declined] - Provide details on how an end user would be impacted with or without this change. In addition to the Steps to Reproduce (STR), explain the deeper implications for users. [Is this code covered by automated tests?] - Options: Yes / No / Unknown. [Has the fix been verified in Daily? (or Beta for an ESR uplift?)] - Indicate whether the fix has been verified in a Daily or Beta build, and by whom (e.g., the reporter or QA). [Needs manual test from QA?] - Options: Yes / No. - If "Yes," include the steps to reproduce either by referencing an existing comment with STR or elaborating directly. [List of other uplifts needed] - If this patch depends on other changes not present on the target branch, list those dependencies here. - Ensure approval is also requested for dependent patches. [Risk to taking this patch] - Options: Low / Medium / High. - Provide a justification as to why the benefits of the uplift outweigh the associated risks. Examples: - Low: A one-line CSS change impacting only the settings page. - Medium: Due to code complexity and integration with other areas, there might be regressions in related functionality. - High: The patch involves complex changes with a high likelihood of fallout or regressions, which may require extensive manual testing or mitigation strategies. [Why is the change risky/not risky? (and alternatives if risky)] - If the change is risky, explain the potential impact. In other words, describe the potential negative impacts that could occur if the change leads to a regression. What mitigations were taken to reduce the risk? What alternative solutions were considered? [String changes made/needed] - Answer "none" if no string changes were made. - If there are string changes, add details and justification to help with l10n review.