On 2013-01-18 11:03 AM, Justin Lebar wrote:
Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:39 AM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote:
So given that this is a regression in Firefox 19 (which is now on
beta), and the only reason we're not seeing this permaorange on beta
is because we don't generate non-debug nightly builds on beta (and I
don't think we run tests on any of our debug nightlies), it seems
odd to close only Aurora for this. It seems like depending on what
we think of its seriousness, we should either close both aurora and
beta, or we should close neither.
I don't think we've ever closed a tree for test failures which _would_ show
up there if we ran tests there but don't because we don't do that...
This is an is/ought fallacy: dbaron is answering the question "what
ought we to do?", while the response above is an answer to the
question "what /do/ we do?".
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
There may be a good reason not to close beta, but "we haven't done so
in the past" isn't particularly compelling.
I'm not sure where you're going with this, Justin. My intention was not
to present a fallacy. I was trying to suggest that we usually close
trees for build/test bustage, not for there being regressions there, so
I don't see a reason to close beta. I don't understand whether you're
arguing that we should close beta or are you just pointing out a problem
in what I said. In the latter case, I stand corrected and apologies for
not getting my sentence quite right. In the former case, you need to
have a better argument I think.
Ehsan
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
