Resent from the right address.
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Eric Seidel <esei...@google.com> wrote: > We're ready to turn down the cr-linux EWS bots at your command. > > Just let us know (via email or #webkit). Thanks! > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Geoffrey Garen <gga...@apple.com> wrote: >> To clarify: >> >> (1) The EWS bots are still running. >> >> (2) The mac and mac-wk2 EWS bots are running tests, and passing. >> >> (3) The cr-linux bots are running tests, and failing. >> >> If we're OK with item (3), we can go ahead with cleaning house, and break >> the cr-* EWS bots entirely, while we work on making the mac and mac-wk2 EWS >> bots faster. >> >> Geoff >> >> On Apr 4, 2013, at 12:44 PM, Filip Pizlo <fpi...@apple.com> wrote: >> >> I think everyone is agreeing that we should have a suitable replacement for >> EWS. >> >> But I also want to see us move forward with clean ups. I think such clean >> ups will bring clarity to what we would want our EWS testing to look like >> since we'll have fewer configurations to test. >> >> I like the approach of switching to manual testing in the short term, and >> working in parallel on an EWS replacement. >> >> Sent from my PDP-11 >> >> On Apr 4, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Brent Fulgham <bfulg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi folks, >> >> I definitely do not want to see the EWS system go away. But in the short >> term , I would be in favor of manual commits and manual testing. >> >> We still have the build bots running tests, so it's not like we lose all >> coverage. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -Brent >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Apr 4, 2013, at 11:56 AM, Geoffrey Garen <gga...@apple.com> wrote: >> >>> I'd also suggest purging the chromium layout tests ASAP so we can enjoy >>> the much-reduced archive sync costs. >> >> >> We really need to get the Mac or Win EWS performing tests by default and >> reliably before doing this. At present, only the chromium-linux EWS bot has >> been consistently running tests. When Mac/Win tests were turned on recently, >> it resulted in huge backups on those EWS bots, and eventually having tests >> disabled. >> >> >> Sorry, I got excited and removed the Chromium test results before I read >> this email. >> >> If committers are willing to do their own regression testing and committing, >> we can move forward with cleaning house. (For what it's worth, that's how >> I've always worked.) >> >> Otherwise, if we want to depend on the Chromium EWS tester and the Chromium >> commit queue, we have to put cleaning house on hold. We need to keep the >> Chromium/v8 port building, and maintain its test results, until we have >> alternate sources for that stuff. If that's the consensus, I'll restore the >> cr-linux and cr-linux-x86 test results. >> >> My preference is to move forward with cleaning house. It has already reduced >> the webkit download size by 1GB. What do other folks think? >> >> Regards, >> Geoff >> >> _______________________________________________ >> webkit-dev mailing list >> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> webkit-dev mailing list >> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev >> _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
