Re: rr chaos mode update

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Kyle Huey wrote: > rr runs fine under VMWare ;) > Yes, but asking developers to fire up a VM and sync their changes to that VM when adding a test adds a pretty high impediment to adding a test. (Your post might have tongue-in-cheek on this

Re: rr chaos mode update

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Kyle Huey wrote: > Seems like a good thing to expect developers to do locally today. > I don't think that's realistic for developers who aren't on Linux. > > - Kyle > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Justin Dolske

Re: rr chaos mode update

rr runs fine under VMWare ;) - Kyle On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Kyle Huey wrote: > >> Seems like a good thing to expect developers to do locally today. >> > > I don't think that's realistic

Re: rr chaos mode update

Seems like a good thing to expect developers to do locally today. - Kyle On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Justin Dolske wrote: > On 2/14/16 9:25 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: > > How far are we from being able to use cloud (rather than local) machine >> time to produce a trace of

Re: rr chaos mode update

On 2/14/16 9:25 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: How far are we from being able to use cloud (rather than local) machine time to produce a trace of an intermittently-failing bug? Some one-click procedure to produce a trace from a failure on treeherder seems like it would lower the activation energy

Re: rr chaos mode update

On 2/14/16 9:16 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: Lots of tests have been disabled for intermittency over the years. Now we have the ability to fix (at least some of) them without much pain, it may be worth revisiting them, though i don't know how to prioritize that. We might want to revisit our

Re: rr chaos mode update

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote: > On 15/02/2016 05:16, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > >> At this point the limiting factor is getting developers to actually debug >> and fix recorded test failures. >> > > Well, and platform (OS) support for rr,

Re: Presto: Comparing Firefox performance with other browsers (and e10s with non-e10s)

On 2016-02-14 8:30 PM, Valentin Gosu wrote: >Great! It'll be interesting to track how these change over time as well >(or as versions get added to the list). Again, medians/means/etc may >help with evaluating and tracking this (or automating notices, ala Talos) > I thought about doing this,

[Firefox Desktop] Issues found: February 8th to February 12th

Hi everyone, Here's the list of new issues found and filed by the Desktop Release QA team last week, *February 8 - February 12* (week 6). Additional details on the team's priorities last week, as well as the plans for the current week are available at:

Re: Gecko/Firefox stats and diagrams wanted

This is really useful, thanks Nathan/all. I have mostly finished my presentation now, and will send it around once finished to see if anything things anything in it is too wrong/inaccurate to be broadcast in public. The first group I’m giving it too is a small group of university students.

Re: rr chaos mode update

On 15/02/2016 05:16, Robert O'Callahan wrote: At this point the limiting factor is getting developers to actually debug and fix recorded test failures. Well, and platform (OS) support for rr, right? And rr also doesn't effectively support debugging frontend JS tests, AIUI? Have either of

Re: rr chaos mode update

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > Relatedly, roc, is it possible to replay, on a different host, with > possibly a different CPU, a record that would have been taken on the > cloud? Does using a VM make it possible? If yes, having "the cloud" (or > a set of