On Friday 2016-09-02 11:49 -0700, Wes Kocher wrote: > I don't believe that's a workable situation. At the moment, the policy is > that every new intermittent failure gets a bug filed for the purpose of > tracking it. There's talk (and has been for at least a year or two, now) that > work will begin on OrangeFactor version 2, where intermittent failures could > get tracked within OrangeFactor's own database, and we only file bugs for the > failures that get too noisy, but no one has had time to work on that in the > last two years, so would need prioritization from higher ups for someone(s) > to dedicate some time to work on it.
In the past, a single problem that showed up across multiple tests would be covered by a single bug, as it should be. Recently, sheriffing practices have changed so that intermittent failure bugs that show up in different tests now have a separate bugzilla bug for each test they occur in. This causes: 1. a large number of rarely-occurring bugs -- enough that intermittent-orange bugs are a significant fraction of the bugs reported, but most of the bugs document only a single failure (in many cases, a problem that has also occurred on other tests, tracked in different bugs). This encourages ignoring the bugs and just looking at orangefactor for what's interesting/relevant. 2. spreading out a single problem across >100 bugs [1] leads to the severity of that problem being ignored for extended periods of time. -David [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=1285531 -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
