Right. I just mean that the merger should take care to ensure that all of
the easy "fixes" are done and that the rest are accounted for somehow,
probably via regression bugs. If that's the current process, then great.
It just sounded like it wasn't.
-Darin
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Pam Greene <p...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Define "resolved". Is filing and assigning a bug sufficient? It's not
> efficient to have whoever volunteers to do a merge personally pester people
> to fix the resulting test errors forever after.
> Whatever we do, we're going to have broken layout tests after a merge. Easy
> "fixes" -- re-baselining the ones that are actually all right, and filing
> specific bugs for the rest -- are definitely part of the merge task. But we
> don't want to put too much blame on the messenger: if a bunch of tests
> really break, or new tests don't pass, it's hardly the fault of the person
> who happened to bring the changes in.
>
> - Pam
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Darin Fisher <da...@chromium.org> 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 <s...@chromium.org> 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 <bre...@chromium.org>
>>> 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: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
