On 10/06/2015 01:57 AM, Julien Wajsberg wrote:
> Le 02/10/2015 19:16, Fabrice Desré a écrit :
>> On 10/02/2015 09:49 AM, Justin D'Arcangelo wrote:
>>> I would also like to add that this policy of immediately pouncing on devs
>>> who attempt to try something new that may cause the perf numbers to
>>> momentarily dip is part of why we seem to have a culture problem in FxOS
>>> dev where everyone is afraid to take any kind of risks. If we are not
>>> allowed to have a 2-3 week window to optimize after a huge landing such as
>>> this, then how are we supposed to experiment or take risks?
>> You have all the time you want if you don't put dogfooders at risk. No
>> one is saying that you should not take the risk to try something new
>> (side note, you spent enough time on spark & flyweb to know that). But
>> when it comes to shipping there is a minimum bar to meet, and with
>> basically a x2 memory usage we are not meeting it in this app yet,
>> sorry. Feel free to ship a new app alongside the existing one instead
>> and ask people to try it, since we can't do A/B testing.
>
> Sorry, I disagree here. I don't completely disagree though, so bear with
> me :)
>
> I think the best way to find bugs and regressions is exposing the
> changes to users. _of course_ we need to make sure we don't badly break
> the phone first. But users of the master branch will have regressions.
> That's normal and expected. Any big feature will get at least a handful
> of regressions. Our goal is to track them and fix them, before we ship
> to less technical/less engaged users. IMO that's why we wanted the
> dogfood process in the first place.
I guess we only disagree on the magnitude of the regressions we are
happy to ship to dogfooders. Your bar seems higher than mine.
> If you want that dogfooders don't get the master regressions, then don't
> use the master branch. BTW I personally think we should let the
> dogfooders choose between "master-dogfood" and "aurora-dogfood" branches.
There's already "dogfood" (with QA sign off) and "dogfood-latest"
(nightlies, use at your own risk).
> Now, I guess you're afraid that we're losing dogfooders, even those on
> master that are aware they can get issues. Big news, they don't leave
> the program because an app takes 2x memory. Users don't even see it. You
> can look at the list of foxfood bugs [1], very few bugs have "slow" or
> "performance" in their summary.
>
> So please don't mix and confuse topics and concerns. The performance
> concern is important, but it's not what puts dogfooders at risk.
Well... we have almost no dogfooders, because we have been unable to
ship updates fixing a bunch of bugs that were submitted at the beginning
of the program. So right now I don't think we can draw any conclusions
from the foxfood feedback unfortunately. And it's not because they won't
notice memory regressions that they are not important. I was merely
pointing out that we have an overall quality issue, and memory/startup
time regressions are part of that.
Fabrice
--
Fabrice Desré
b2g team
Mozilla Corporation
_______________________________________________
dev-fxos mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos
