I know that I haven't filed chromium bugs for layout test failures in the past because it isn't in the instructions (I thought adding the the tests_fixable was sufficient.)
http://dev.chromium.org/developers/how-tos/webkit-merge-1 Though I do usually have at least a partial 3rd day of items for clean up: upstreaming, some times filing bugs for new reliability crashes, etc. Dave On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Pam Greene <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not sure how closely that's followed. Me, I did merges Monday and > Tuesday, and layout-test cleanup (baselines and bugs) today. > - Pam > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Darin Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
