http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/reviewers.html may have an up-to-date list of super-reviewers, but lots of other things about it are out of date. There are broken links (SeaMonkey Code Reviewer's Guide, SeaMonkey Engineering Bible), dead mailing lists (email@example.com) and long-gone people (firstname.lastname@example.org). The whole thing could do with a spring-clean. Unless anyone objects, I'll prepare a patch. Gerv
Gerv mconnor has a partial fix for this; at least for the policy part of it. The text is in .governance and i think dev.planning. If you could prepare a patch that incorporated his plans plus fix whatever else you think makes sense that would be awesome. Then we'll have both a new policy for super-review and a doc that maks sense.
Yeah, sorry - I got my documents in a muddle and forgot that Mike was updating this one. Re-reading the relevant thread (http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.governance/browse_thread/thread/1c7c826dca44043c#), I think that his patch probably does all the work and, even if it doesn't, it'll be easier to evaluate what's left to do once it gets checked in. Mike: I'm happy to leave you to it, or to take your patch and drive it if you are busy. Let me know what's best. Gerv
I want to clarify one piece (r+sr) as a last round, but we're otherwise good to go real soon now.
Created attachment 386678 [details] [diff] [review] policy updates We should separate the policy from the rules and tips/seeking review, I'd like to move those out of the document as a second step. This is good to go, pending silent assent on the r+sr clarification in dev.planning.
No further feedback, the policy changes are pushed to CVS.
Should the page have a title instead of leading with "Introduction"? Perhaps something like "Code Review Policy"?
Even after Mike's excellent work, there are still places this document needs updating, or bits need removing elsewhere. (Mike's plan in the newsgroup listed some of them.) So we can fix that along with those things. Gerv
Gerv is this still on your list? I'm guessing whole hunks at the end can go, you may be closer to this than I.
mitchell: still on my list, and I agree with your conclusion. Most of that end stuff can either go entirely, or be farmed out into a separate document. Gerv
OK, I've overhauled the page. Please file additional bugs for further specific requested changes, if any. Gerv