Aren't we trying to get rid of the merge process (soon-ish)? If so, how would layout tests get fixed at that point?
Dave On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Darin Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the merger should be responsible for ensuring that any layout test > fallout from the merge gets resolved. This doesn't mean necessary fixing > everything, but rather it can be mean reaching out to others for help. > I think the merger has to have incentive not to create a big mess with the > merge and to also make sure the job gets done completely :-) > > -Darin > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Scott Violet <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> If we are ever to keep up to date with layout tests we need to come to >> a consensus on this. Here's the current set of proposals: >> >> 1. The merge becomes a two day activity. First day is merge, second >> day is fixing any failing layout tests. >> 2. We tag team people: first person does merge, next day another >> person fixes any failing layout tests. >> 3. One person for merge (like we do now), and failures are handled by >> owners of the layout tests. This assumes we can identify owners for >> buckets of layout tests so that folks know they are on the spot for a >> failing test. >> >> At this point we only care about regressions since 1.0, but that'll change >> soon. >> >> Can we make a decision on this at next weeks WebKit meeting? >> >> -Scott >> >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Brett Wilson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > I'm currently doing a 2-day merge rotation.As part of this, various >> > layout tests are regressing or getting added that I'm inserting into >> > the tests_fixable list. >> > >> > But, like every other layout test fixer, after my merges are done, >> > I'll finally go back to my old work and not think about it any more. >> > This is how we get a monotonically increasing list of broken tests at >> > the end of the tests fixable. I'm pretty certain this happens faster >> > than the tests are getting fixed because nobody wants to fix them. I'm >> > sort of tempted to just fix the ones my merge broke now, but that will >> > put me behind for my next merge, so I don't do that. >> > >> > I propose a different rotation schedule for WebKit merges. You would >> > do one day of merges, and the next day you would have to clean up all >> > the regressed and new layout tests your merge introduced. The layout >> > tests usually aren't that hard, so it normally wouldn't take the whole >> > day. This way we can be in a good steady state of WebKit merges. It >> > should also have a big advantage for fixing the broken tests since the >> > things that changed, the build numbers involved, etc. are still fresh >> > in the merger's head, and it won't be like approaching a random layout >> > test from the list with no context. >> > >> > The disadvantage of doing this is that we have to find people to do >> > the merges faster (we should probably formalize the schedule), and >> > you'll lose some advantage the second day of having all the >> > instructions and gotchas of the merge fresh in your mind. I was >> > thinking of a 3 day schedule (2 days of merging, 1 day of fixing) but >> > that seems too heavyweight for the people volunteering to do this. >> > >> > Anybody have any comments? >> > Brett >> > >> > > >> > >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
