On Jun 8, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Balazs Kelemen wrote: > On 06/08/2012 05:21 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote: >> On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Balazs Kelemen<kbal...@webkit.org> wrote: >> >>> On 06/08/2012 09:46 AM, Osztrogonac Csaba wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Dirk Pranke írta: >>>>> I believe most if not all of the ports have started using either >>>>> TestExpectations files or a combination of TestExpectations files >>>>> (except for the Apple Win port). >>>>> >>>>> Can we explicitly switch to the TestExpectations files at this point >>>>> and drop support for Skipped files on the other ports (and perhaps >>>>> disable old-run-webkit-tests for all but apple win)? >>>> Until NRWT can't handle cascaded TestExpectations - >>>> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65834, >>>> Qt port can't drop supporting Skipped files. We have many tests skipped in >>>> qt-5.0, qt-5.0-wk1, >>>> qt-5.0-wk2, wk2 Skipped lists. We can't migrate all of them to the only >>>> one TestExpectations. >>>> >>>> And I disagree with disabling ORWT at all. Qt port still support using >>>> ORWT locally. >>>> It is better for gardening than NRWT. NRWT regularly has problems with >>>> generating >>>> new results for a given platform dir (qt,qt-5.0,qt-5.0-wk1,...), it >>>> doesn't support >>>> the good --skipped=only option . If folks don't want to use it, just not >>>> use, but >>>> disabling for everyone by fiat isn't a friendly thing. >>> 1. These are real weaknesses of nrwt, we should fix them. If gardening is >>> better with orwt (i doubt that is the case, but I don't do gardening >>> regularly), we should improve nrwt, i.e. reimplement features from orwt. >> I applaud your enthusiasm. >> >>> 2. I believe basically everybody agrees that we should drop orwt, except >>> you Ossy. Maybe I'm wrong. So, is there anybody still want to have support >>> for orwt? If so, why? >> I'm with Ossy on this. >> >> Getting rid of ORWT would be a show stopper for me. >> >> This talk of fixing bugs in NRWT is really great but until such time as >> those bugs are fixed, let's keep ORWT. >> > > Understandable. Let me make it clear: I don't prefer one over the other. I > believe it's contra-productive that some people/bots use this, and others use > that. It adds overhead to bot maintainance, it's bad for developer > experience, and it blocks the evolution of the one and only tool - because > some people still make efforts on fixing/improving the other instead.
I think one issue that ought to be fixed with NRWT is the level of infrastructural complexity that it has, and the extent to which its algorithmic design (say, load balancing technique) is ossified through the use of entirely unnecessary object oriented pattern overhead. In short, NRWT is overengineered. As such, there will be those of us, which prefer solutions that are not overengineered, and who thus end up hacking ORWT when we need to get work done. -F > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
