On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:19 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote: > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Filip Pizlo <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Balazs Kelemen <[email protected]> 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. > > Can you file bugs or give me examples of why this is true? Are there > specific features missing, or bugs you're hitting?
Here's a really nasty one, that has been sitting untouched since November: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71634 > You mentioned the > architecture of the code and how easy it was for you to modify things > - I'll follow up with you on this separately (although I'd be happy to > discuss this on webkit-dev, just in another thread to avoid > confusion). > > -- Dirk _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
