Merging upstream version 127.0.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>

6 files changed, 99 insertions, 12 deletions

diff --git a/docs/contributing/contribution_quickref.rst b/docs/contributing/contribution_quickref.rst
index f6f80e0cdf..9a9e5240e9 100644
--- a/docs/contributing/contribution_quickref.rst
+++ b/docs/contributing/contribution_quickref.rst
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ To Setup Firefox for Android
     $ curl https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/raw-file/default/python/mozboot/bin/bootstrap.py -O
     $ python3 bootstrap.py
 
-More information on :ref:`building Firefox for Android <fenix-contributor-guide>`
+More information on :ref:`building Firefox for Android <Firefox for Android>`
 
 To set up your editor
 ---------------------
diff --git a/docs/contributing/data-review.rst b/docs/contributing/data-review.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..93cc4067a6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/contributing/data-review.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+Data Review
+-----------
+
+**Everything that lands in mozilla-central that adds or expands data
+collection must go through the data review process.**
+
+This will require assessing the sensitivity of the data that is being
+collected, and going through the `sensitive data collection
+process <https://wiki.mozilla.org/Data_Collection#Step_3:_Sensitive_Data_Collection_Review_Process>`__
+if necessary. All data collection is subject to our `overall data
+collection policy <https://wiki.mozilla.org/Data_Collection>`__.
+
+Documentation for the data collection request process and the
+expectations we have for people following it `lives on the
+wiki <https://wiki.mozilla.org/Data_Collection#Requesting_Data_Collection>`__.
+This document describes the technical implementation in Phabricator
+using tags.
+
+1. Any change that touches metrics will be automatically flagged with a
+   ``needs-data-classification`` tag by Phabricator, using `this herald
+   rule <https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/H436>`__. If a change
+   adds/updates data collection in a way that doesn’t automatically
+   trigger this rule, this tag should be added manually (and if
+   appropriate, please file a bug to update the herald rule so it
+   happens automatically next time).
+
+2. After assessing data sensitivity, the tag can be replaced with either
+   ``data-classification-low`` or ``data-classification-high`` depending
+   on that sensitivity.
+
+3. Adding ``data-classification-high`` will auto-add the ``#data-stewards``
+   reviewer group as a blocking reviewer for the change and initiate the
+   `sensitive data review process <https://wiki.mozilla.org/Data_Collection#Step_3:_Sensitive_Data_Collection_Review_Process>`__.
+
+4. For patches making mechanical changes that happen to trigger the
+   herald rule linked above, but that do not actually add or update any
+   data collection, the ``data-classification-unnecessary`` tag can be used.
+
+Patches with the ``needs-data-classification`` tag will not be landable in
+Lando. The process linked above must be followed in order to land the
+change.
diff --git a/docs/contributing/how_to_submit_a_patch.rst b/docs/contributing/how_to_submit_a_patch.rst
index d8ef62f742..7c5b56a7e1 100644
--- a/docs/contributing/how_to_submit_a_patch.rst
+++ b/docs/contributing/how_to_submit_a_patch.rst
@@ -105,11 +105,6 @@ simple commit message should look like this:
 
    Bug 123456 - Change this thing to work better by doing something. r=reviewers
 
-The ``r=reviewers`` part is optional; if you are using Phabricator,
-Lando will add it automatically based on who actually granted review,
-and in any case the person who does the final check-in of the patch will
-make sure it's added.
-
 The text of the message should be what you did to fix the bug, not a
 description of what the bug was. If it is not obvious why this change is
 appropriate, then `explain why in the commit
@@ -117,6 +112,11 @@ message <https://mozilla-version-control-tools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/mozrevie
 If this does not fit on one line, then leave a blank line and add
 further lines for more detail and/or reasoning.
 
+The ``r=reviewers`` part specifies that ``reviewers`` should review the patch
+and provide feedback before it is integrated into the Firefox codebase. For
+choosing reviewers, and the full reviewer syntax, please see
+:ref:`Getting reviews`.
+
 You can edit the message of the current commit at any time using
 ``hg commit --amend`` or ``hg histedit``.
 
diff --git a/docs/contributing/index.rst b/docs/contributing/index.rst
index 3321b7f5f4..4b7cb7e23d 100644
--- a/docs/contributing/index.rst
+++ b/docs/contributing/index.rst
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ development process and source code documentation.
    reviews
    levelling-up
    how_to_submit_a_patch
+   data-review
 
 
 .. toctree::
diff --git a/docs/contributing/reviews.rst b/docs/contributing/reviews.rst
index 386872819c..8f026eec85 100644
--- a/docs/contributing/reviews.rst
+++ b/docs/contributing/reviews.rst
@@ -5,10 +5,37 @@ Getting reviews
 Thorough code reviews are one of Mozilla's ways of ensuring code quality.
 Every patch must be reviewed by the module owner of the code, or one of their designated peers.
 
-To request a review, you will need to specify a review group (starts with #). If there is not, you should select one or more usernames either when you submit the patch, or afterward in the UI.
-If you have a mentor, the mentor can usually either also review or find a suitable reviewer on your behalf.
+Commit message syntax
+---------------------
 
-For example, the syntax to request review from a group should be:
+When submitting your commit(s), use the following syntax to request review for your patch:
+
+.. list-table::
+   :header-rows: 1
+
+   * - Request
+     - Syntax
+     - Description
+   * - Single reviewer
+     - ``r=reviewer``
+     - Request a review from a single reviewer (``reviewer``). Historically, the syntax ``r?reviewer`` requested a review, and ``r=reviewer`` marked the reviewer who accepted the patch before landing. Both can now be used interchangeably when requesting a review.
+   * - Multiple reviewers
+     - ``r=reviewer1,reviewer2``
+     - Request reviews from *both* ``reviewer1`` and ``reviewer2``.
+   * - Blocking review
+     - ``r=reviewer!``
+     - Request a *blocking* review from ``reviewer``. This means that ``reviewer`` *must* review the patch before it can be landed.
+   * - Both optional and blocking reviews
+     - ``r=reviewer1,reviewer2!``
+     - Request a *blocking* review from ``reviewer2``, and an *optional* review from ``reviewer1``.
+   * - Review groups
+     - ``r=#review-group``
+     - Request a review from members of ``#review-group``. A full list can be found below.
+   * - Blocking review groups
+     - ``r=#review-group!``
+     - Request a blocking review from a review group. This will require *at least one member* of the group to approve before landing.
+
+For example, the commit syntax to request review from group ``group-name`` or ``developer-nickname`` would be:
 
 .. code-block::
 
@@ -18,12 +45,30 @@ For example, the syntax to request review from a group should be:
 
      Bug xxxx - explain what you are doing and why r?developer-nickname
 
-Getting attention: If a reviewer doesn't respond within a week, or so of the review request:
+Reviews, and review groups, can be selected or adjusted after submission in the phabricator UI.
+
+Sometimes when publishing a patch, groups will automatically be added as blocking reviewers due to the code being touched. In this case, you may want to check that the reviewers you requested review from are set to blocking as well.
+
+Choosing reviewers
+------------------
+
+* If you have a mentor assigned on the bug you are fixing, the mentor can usually either also review or find a suitable reviewer on your behalf.
+* If you do not have a mentor, see if your code fits into one of the review groups below, and request review from that group.
+* Otherwise, try looking at the history of the file to see who has modified it recently. (For example, `hg log <modified-file>` or `git log <modified-file>`)
+* Finally if you are still unable to identify someone, try asking in the `#introduction channel on Matrix <https://chat.mozilla.org/#/room/#introduction:mozilla.org>`_.
+
+
+Getting attention
+-----------------
+
+Generally most reviews will happen within roughly a week. If, however, a reviewer doesn't respond within a week or so of the review request:
 
   * Contact the reviewer directly (either via e-mail or on Matrix).
   * Join developers on `Mozilla's Matrix server <https://chat.mozilla.org>`_, and ask if anyone knows why a review may be delayed. Please link to the bug too.
   * If the review is still not addressed, mail the reviewer directly, asking if/when they'll have time to review the patch, or might otherwise be able to review it.
 
+Remember that reviewers are human too, and may have complex reasons that prevent them from reviewing your patch in a timely manner. Be confident in reaching out to your reviewer, but be mindful of the `Mozilla Community Participation Guidelines <https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/participation/>`_ while doing so.
+
 For simple documentation changes, reviews are not required.
 
 For more information about the review process, see the :ref:`Code Review FAQ`.
diff --git a/docs/contributing/signing/signing_macos_build.rst b/docs/contributing/signing/signing_macos_build.rst
index 688a935bbe..ef5e5f3ab3 100644
--- a/docs/contributing/signing/signing_macos_build.rst
+++ b/docs/contributing/signing/signing_macos_build.rst
@@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ Example: Re-Signing Official Nightly
     0:00.20 Using ad-hoc signing identity
     0:00.20 Using nightly channel signing configuration
     0:00.20 Using developer entitlements
-    0:00.20 Reading build config file /Users/me/r/mc/taskcluster/ci/config.yml
+    0:00.20 Reading build config file /Users/me/r/mc/taskcluster/config.yml
     0:00.23 Stripping existing xattrs and signatures
     0:01.91 Signing with codesign
     0:02.72 Verification of signed app /Users/me/Desktop/FirefoxNightly.app OK
@@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ can be exported from Keychain Access in .p12 format.
     0:00.26 Using pkcs12 signing identity
     0:00.26 Using devedition channel signing configuration
     0:00.26 Using developer entitlements
-    0:00.26 Reading build config file /Users/me/r/mc/taskcluster/ci/config.yml
+    0:00.26 Reading build config file /Users/me/r/mc/taskcluster/config.yml
     0:00.29 Stripping existing xattrs and signatures
     0:02.09 Signing with rcodesign
     0:11.16 Verification of signed app /Users/me/Desktop/DevEdition.app OK