On 12-08-29 7:32 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some people have noted in the past that some Talos measurements are not
representative of something that the users would see, the Talos numbers are
noisy, and we don't have good tools to deal with these types of regressions.
There might be some truth to all of these, but I believe that the bigger
problem is that nobody owns watching over these numbers, and as a result as
take regressions in some benchmarks which can actually be representative of
what our users experience.
In my experience, a lot of those emails say "there was a regression
caused by one of the following 100 patches", and I will have written 1
of those patches. I usually ignore those ones (though it depends on
the nature of the patch).
But if I get an email saying something like "there was a regression
caused by one of the following 3 commits", I'll look into it.
Yeah, I know that those emails are not perfect, and I know that some
people do look into these problems, but I don't think that is the
general trend, as is evident from the 6-week cycle results on the latest
uplift.
Cheers,
Ehsan
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
