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.
>
>
> -- Dirk
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
