On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:52 PM, David Levin<le...@google.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpra...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Ojan Vafai<o...@chromium.org> wrote:
>> > The end goal is to be in a state where we have near zero failing tests
>> > that
>> > are not for unimplemented features. And new failures from the merge get
>> > addressed within a week.
>> > Once we're at that point, would this new infrastructure be useful? I
>> > completely support infrastructure that sustainably supports us being at
>> > near
>> > zero failing tests (e.g. the rebaseline tool). All
>> > infrastructure/process
>> > has a maintenance cost though.
>>
>> True enough. There are at least two counterexamples that are worth
>> considering. The first is that probably won't be at zero failing tests
>> any time soon (where "any time soon" == next 3-6 months), and so there
>> may be intermediary value. The second is that we have a policy of
>> running every test, even tests for unimplemented features, and so we
>> may catch regressions for the foreseeable future.
>>
>> That said, I don't know if the value will offset the cost. Hence the
>> desire to run a couple of cheap experiments :)
>
> What do the "cheap experiments" entail? Key concern: If the cheapness is to
> put more work on the webkit gardeners, it isn't cheap at all imo.
>
"Cheap experiments" == "me snapshotting the results of tests I run
periodically and comparing them". No work for anyone else.
-- Dirk
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
