> We're back to my first message on the thread. >> We don't have the adequate tooling to achieve our performance goal. >> > Good, then I believe we are all on the same page and I agree with what you said, with one disconnect: there is a difference between "achieving our performance goals" and "achieving our performance goals automatically". We have the tools to make this happen, it just takes more effort than we would like. Yes, having more than 2 people working on this would be nice, but things were slimmed down quite a bit when we dissolved the performance team. As such, "achieving performance goals" is certainly doable as long as everyone is willing to get their hands dirty and run some local tests.
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Naoki Hirata <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > Are you speaking about automated pre-commit performance testing? Achieving that is in progress but somewhat distant still, and we already have all the tooling in place for answering this information up-front before landing, just manually, which you have already stated. To be fair, it's not my place to say what can land and what can't, what regressions to keep and which to back out. We work on *the tooling* to make those decisions, but do not make those decisions. It is up to engineering to work with product to make those determinations, and we will support whatever everyone decides. :) Thanks, Eli Perelman
_______________________________________________ dev-fxos mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos
