Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Release Management/Uplift rules

41 bytes added, 15:43, 15 April 2014
Move the Firefox (desktop + android) in a dedicated category
* The name/nickname of the release manager who approved the uplift will be added in the commit message with ''a='' (example: ''a=foobar'')
 = Guidelines on approval comments =* [Bug caused by] (feature/regressing bug #): If you this is a fallout from a feature/bug, or a backout please state the reason along with the bug number* [User impact] if declined: In addition to the STR (steps to reproduce) reported in the bug if you can explain on a deeper level aspect of how an end user would be impacted with/without your change* [Testing completed]: What kind of testing was completed here. Manual and/or automated ? Any details about what scenarios the tests cover? If the patch landed on a master/central branch or any other branch did we get verification from reporter or QA. * [Risk to taking this patch]: No risk/Zero risk are unacceptable here. Even a single line of code change could be damaging!, yes we've seen that** When saying something is "low","medium", "risky" please justify** Eg : Low risk because its a one line CSS change impacting only settings page** Eg : Medium, given the code complexity and integration with other areas of code that might be impacted. Expect regressions in areas like..** Eg : risky, given the complex nature the bake time we have have on master/central or other branches. High rate of fallouts/regression. Could be mitigated by more manual testing in areas or running some targeted test cases..* [String changes made]: Please answer this as "none" if no string changes were made  = Firefox (Desktop and Mobile) ===Aurora Uplift (approval-mozilla-aurora)==
* Can accept IDL (with UUID bump) changes as we do not lock down binary for addons until Beta
* No string changes unless late-l10n awareness and OK given
* No massive code changes
==Beta Uplift (approval-mozilla-beta)==
* Must be landed on mozilla-central as well as mozilla-aurora, or reason given for direct-to-branch uplift
* Ideally reproducible by QA so easily verified
The closer to the release the more careful uplift should be done.
==Release Uplift==
* Must be a part of a known-issue respin or NPTOB (not part of the build) config changes needed to support build infra
 
= Guidelines on approval comments =
* [Bug caused by] (feature/regressing bug #): If you this is a fallout from a feature/bug, or a backout please state the reason along with the bug number
* [User impact] if declined: In addition to the STR (steps to reproduce) reported in the bug if you can explain on a deeper level aspect of how an end user would be impacted with/without your change
* [Testing completed]: What kind of testing was completed here. Manual and/or automated ? Any details about what scenarios the tests cover? If the patch landed on a master/central branch or any other branch did we get verification from reporter or QA.
* [Risk to taking this patch]: No risk/Zero risk are unacceptable here. Even a single line of code change could be damaging!, yes we've seen that
** When saying something is "low","medium", "risky" please justify
** Eg : Low risk because its a one line CSS change impacting only settings page
** Eg : Medium, given the code complexity and integration with other areas of code that might be impacted. Expect regressions in areas like..
** Eg : risky, given the complex nature the bake time we have have on master/central or other branches. High rate of fallouts/regression. Could be mitigated by more manual testing in areas or running some targeted test cases..
* [String changes made]: Please answer this as "none" if no string changes were made
=Firefox OS gaia uplifts=
Confirm
709
edits

Navigation menu