Closed
Bug 1424710
Opened 6 years ago
Closed 6 years ago
extend http_channel_disposition telemetry
Categories
(Core :: Networking: HTTP, enhancement, P2)
Core
Networking: HTTP
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla59
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox59 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: mcmanus, Assigned: mcmanus, NeedInfo)
Details
(Whiteboard: [necko-triaged])
Attachments
(1 file)
We need this in the rcwn era and it will be helpful evaluation a number of latency/bw tradeoffs going forward.
Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
Comment 2•6 years ago
|
||
mozreview-review |
Comment on attachment 8936245 [details] Bug 1424710 - extend http_channel_disposition telemetry https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/207008/#review212800 LGTM. Not sure if it needs data review as well.
Attachment #8936245 -
Flags: review?(valentin.gosu) → review+
Assignee: nobody → mcmanus
Priority: -- → P2
Whiteboard: [necko-triaged]
Pushed by mcmanus@ducksong.com: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/852d5fc05a23 extend http_channel_disposition telemetry r=valentin
Comment 4•6 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/852d5fc05a23
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 6 years ago
status-firefox59:
--- → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla59
Comment 5•6 years ago
|
||
Extending the lifetime of a data collection does indeed require Data Collection Review. Especially if you're changing it to never.
Flags: needinfo?(valentin.gosu)
Flags: needinfo?(mcmanus)
Flags: needinfo?(valentin.gosu)
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•6 years ago
|
||
When I recently spoke with Rebecca she was very clear that this kind of machine level general web characterizaton data was fine for never and did not require review. not true?
Flags: needinfo?(mcmanus)
Comment 7•6 years ago
|
||
I'm just the dev who gets emails when Histograms.json changes, so I'm not invited to meetings with such rarefied air :) ni?Rebecca to comment on Data Collection Review for extending the expiry of (looks like) Category 1 "Internet Health" measures.
Flags: needinfo?(rweiss)
Comment 8•6 years ago
|
||
If this data collection has already gone through review and this is just to extend the expiry, we can amend the previous review effort with the answer to a single question: who is primarily associated with monitoring/owning this probe for the foreseeable future? Otherwise, if this probe has never gone through review before, we should apply the current data review process to this effort. For a type 1 measurement, this can be expedited clearly. So followups: 1) Was there data review for this probe somewhere already? If so, we can r+ by simply identifying in this bug thread who is the permanent monitoring/owning individual. 2) If there is no data review to be found, please answer the questions in this form here (https://github.com/mozilla/data-review/blob/master/request.md) and I can perform the review quickly (just r? me back with answers in hand).
Flags: needinfo?(rweiss)
Flags: needinfo?(mcmanus)
Flags: needinfo?(chutten)
Comment 9•6 years ago
|
||
HTTP_CHANNEL_DISPOSITION was added in bug 1341128 and was data-r+ from bsmedberg, so I think we're in Case 1 here.
Flags: needinfo?(chutten)
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•