On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Ojan Vafai <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 4:26 AM, Dirk Pranke <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I have just landed a patch that enables us to run layout tests on >> Vista as well as XP. > > Thanks for doing this! Needing to run the tests on a 32bit XP machine sucks. > I don't think we can call running the tests on Vista supported until the > tooling people rely on also supports it. Otherwise, we are causing more > burden than benefit (e.g. we'll essentially be requiring everyone to have > both Vista and XP machines). Things that come to mind: > > Vista bot on the primary (non-fyi) waterfall > Vista layout test try server > Vista canary bot for tip of tree webkit > Rebaseline tool support >
Well, practically, there's very little difference between XP and Vista (about 10 baselines). Victor is updating the rebaselining tool to properly support Vista, and we need to get a release mode bot as well. While I agree that it would be good to have a layout test try server on vista and a canary bot, we didn't have those until very recently for XP, either :) I think it's a more general issue that we should discuss how we want to divide our build machines between XP, Vista, and, soon, Win 7 (as you say below). Just doubling or tripling the number of machines seems like it has minimal ROI. On the other hand, flipping the machines to 64-bit Vista may speed them up substantially ... > We'll also need the same before we consider Win7 supported. I'm OK with > adding Win7 baselines and a Win7 fyi bot before that, but the team should > not be expected to support it until the tools do. > It's not clear to me what our desired end result should be. Do we need a > full set of bots for WebKit Vista and WebKit Win7? Is just having release > bots for each enough? The waterfall is already very crowded. My first > intuition is that we should have release and debug bots for the latest > supported platform (which will soon be Vista) and just release bots for > other platforms (definitely XP, what about Win7?). >> >> Also, the >> >> checkin involved updating > 700 images, so I didn't have anyone but me >> review them. > > I'm confused by this. Are you saying you didn't get this code reviewed? If > so, why not? Can you provide a link to the checkin so it can get reviewed? The code that I changed did get reviewed, but only I reviewed the images themselves. I did this after discussing the pros and cons with Darin yesterday. I'm not sure that there's a lot of value in two people staring at the sets of images. The link to the checkin is here: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=26204 . I can also probably pull you a couple of tarballs of the chromium-win directory pre- and post- checkin if you're volunteering to review them after the fact :) > Test rebaselines should not get checked in without review. Simple, mistakes > are made all the time. Generally speaking, I agree. In this case, the changes were so repetitive in nature it was pretty easy to be sure that things were okay. -- Dirk --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
