On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpra...@chromium.org> wrote: > > I keep hearing that the syntax is "excessively complicated". It's a > pretty simple syntax, but even you think that it is complicated, but > in what way is it excessively so, given that we actively use all of > the features it supports? >
I find having to type : and = and the ordering of tokens extremely annoying. Given no token can be repeated, why can't we just have a set of space-separated tokens? e.g. BUGCR88230 VISTA : fast/dom/dom-parse-serialize-display.html = PASS TIMEOUT can just be: BUGCR88230 VISTA fast/dom/dom-parse-serialize-display.html PASS TIMEOUT or any of the following (not exhaustive): BUGCR88230 VISTA PASS TIMEOUT fast/dom/dom-parse-serialize-display.html BUGCR88230 PASS TIMEOUT VISTA fast/dom/dom-parse-serialize-display.html PASS TIMEOUT BUGCR88230 VISTA fast/dom/dom-parse-serialize-display.html PASS TIMEOUT VISTA BUGCR88230 fast/dom/dom-parse-serialize-display.html On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Ojan Vafai <o...@chromium.org> wrote: > > I think people are more confused with the various failure types. If we move > to a model where we check in failing expectations and just list them with > the bug number, I would be fine with going back to a world without > fine-grained failure types (i.e. we'd just have PASS, FAIL, TIMEOUT and > CRASH). > > People are also confused by dealing with the multitude of different > platforms, but I don't have concrete suggestions on how to improve that > situation. > > Finally, people are confused by how SLOW works. I'd much rather we just > increase the default timeout and give a shorter timeout for tests that are > listed as having TIMEOUT expectations. That maintains the benefits to bot > cycle time without needing to manually maintain a list of slow tests. > +1 for getting rid of SLOW, IMAGE, TEXT, and IMAGE+TEXT. - Ryosuke
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
