AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20070228173719.41032c23@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:onstor-exch02.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<brian.deforest@onstor.com>,<tim.gardner@onstor.com>,<charissa.willard@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@onstor-exch02.onstor.net/INBOX	0	BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E02A086EE@onstor-exch02.onstor.net
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:52:37 -0800
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: "Brian DeForest" <brian.deforest@onstor.com>
Cc: "Tim Gardner" <tim.gardner@onstor.com>, Charissa Willard
 <charissa.willard@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 22893 for review
Message-ID: <20070228175237.56825d09@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E02A086EE@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
References: <WEBMAILK5qL0WphVf7i00000d43@mail.onstor.com>
	<BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E02A08647@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
	<20070228162231.2999bdc9@ripper.onstor.net>
	<BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E02A086EE@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I can't imagine how QA can validate all code changes.  I've never seen
that before anywhere I've worked.  The way I've always seen it done
before is that at some point code is frozen[-ish] and QA starts testing
that with regressions and test plans.  Before that time, reasonable
and helpful changes can go in w/o a bug if they are small, confined,
and don't need explicit QA attention.

Maybe that's why they can't get their schedule on time, they are trying
to do the infinite in a finite amount of time.  But you didn't hear
that from me.

I am led to understand that "validating" a browser is some kind of huge
QA process which I deem to not be necessary.  They can buy that or yank
it out, but if they yank it out it makes it very difficult for me to do
my job.

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:17:18 -0800 "Brian DeForest"
<brian.deforest@onstor.com> wrote:

> Maybe I'm missing something.   Isn't the fact that a code change was
> needed so it will not be "silently excluded" the same as supporting
> it? Put another way, without your change, how is it "silently
> excluded"?

Not sure I'm parsing all this.  It is silently not excluding it,
which isn't the same as supporting it, it's just not keeping it out.
My understanding of "officially supported" browsers is that we list
them in our documentation, and if a browser is excluded (which I think
is rude anyway, even if it's not officially supported), then the client
displays a message listing the supported browsers, and the client can
go no further.  Iceweasel isn't in that message or in the documentation.
It just isn't prevented from entering the magic kingdom.
Hypothetically, if something didn't work, then support would tell them
'so sorry, that's not a supported browser.'


> The bottom line is that whenever possible, we would like QA to
> validate code changes.
> 
> I'm not trying to be a pain in the a** or create more work.   If I
> don't ask, QA most likely will, so I thought I was doing you a
> favor...   :-)

Got it.  I've already been told I screwed this up.  I'll just go back
to kernel hacking now...it's safer there.  Let the hordes come if they
dare.

Cheers,

a

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Sharp 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:23 PM
> To: Brian DeForest
> Cc: Tim Gardner
> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 22893 for review
> 
> Generally speaking, yes, but I was of the impression that checkins
> aren't being restricted as of yet for things that don't require QA
> testing.  We aren't going to explicitly state support for the
> Iceweasel version of Firefox, but I would like it to silently not be
> excluded.  No QA testing is needed for Iceweasel over and above
> Firefox since they are one and the same.
> 
> Right now I can't access filers that are not running with this change,
> so it's posing a problem for me.  I realize I'm on the leading edge of
> some things but that's a good thing in this case as this might start
> to bite some of our customers at around the time Delorean starts to
> make it into the field.  Especially if Fedora adopts the Iceweasel
> name as well.
> 
> a
> 
> 
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:02:12 -0800 "Brian DeForest"
> <brian.deforest@onstor.com> wrote:
> 
> > A more descriptive description is desirable...  
> > 
> > Having looked at the code, I see you added support for Iceweasel.
> > Please file a defect for this so QA can test it and properly close
> > it. Generally speaking, whenever possible the related defect #
> > should be referenced in the changelist.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > Brian
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andy Sharp
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:46 AM
> > To: Andy Sharp; Brian DeForest; Charissa Willard; Chris Vandever; 
> > Danqing Jin; Henry Lau; Ian Brown; Jeseem S; Jobi Ariyamannil; 
> > Jonathan Goldick; Ken Renshaw; Larry Scheer; Maxim Kozlovsky;
> > Nagendra
> 
> > Subramanya; Sandrine Boulanger; Tim Gardner
> > Subject: PERFORCE change 22893 for review
> > 
> > Change 22893 by andys@ripper on 2007/02/28 11:36:40
> > 
> > 	Free friends of firefox.
> > 	Reviewed by charissaw
> > 
> > Affected files ...
> > 
> > ... //depot/FB-DELOREAN/nfx-tree/code/ssc-webui/js/console/login.js#4
> > edit
> > 
