On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: > On Oct 19, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Adam Barth wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> 19.10.2010, в 12:33, Adam Barth написал(а): >>>> Maybe the thing to do is CC the author of the flaky test for the one >>>> bug comment and then immediately unCC them. That way they don't see >>>> the rest of the traffic on the bug. >>> >>> That would still be two e-mails about a bug the person otherwise doesn't >>> want to know about. I don't think that CC'ing is the right approach. >> >> Do you see changes to bugs when you get removed from the CC? Do you >> have another suggestion for how to providing feedback to authors of >> flaky tests? > > It looks like the bot is adding a comment to the bug with the patch that was > being processed when flakiness was detected, not the one that originally > landed the tests believed to be flaky. Is that right? If so, that doesn't > seem like a great way to notify the author of the original test. It seems > like it would be better to comment in the bug that added the test. To be > fair, it's also possible that the new patch caused the flakiness, so a > separate comment there could be useful. Perhaps it would be useful to > determine if the test in question has a track record of flakiness. If not, > then maybe the presumption should be that the patch is the problem, not the > test. On the other hand, if the test has always been flaky, then the new > patch probably has nothing to do with it.
Another option is to file a new bug about the flakiness and ping that bug when we observe the test flake out. Adam _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
