> We're back to my first message on the thread. > We don't have the adequate tooling to achieve our performance goal. >
I think the question lies in answering, how do we resolve this, who resolves this? Perhaps having a quarter goal for some one would help push this to come through? I think it's evident that we need someone to work on it and have it part of their goals even if it's in parts. Getting buy in that devs will use the tooling is also important though. That in itself is a challenge even if the tooling is there. Every release we talk about performance like if the issue was a "developer > awareness" issue, and we take strong stance on how "we should never > regress". > > But if we meant it we'd have more that 2 people working on the very > challenging tooling work required. And believe me I'm fully aware of how > challenging it is. > Completely agree. > We can't hand every gaia and gecko developer a link to moztrap (manual > test case tracker), remove all automated tests, and then be all high-minded > about how we should never regress a feature. But it's exactly what we're > doing with launch time performance. > Again, completely agree.
_______________________________________________ dev-fxos mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos
