> 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.
I was more trying to point out that I don't think you addressed dbaron's argument. I happen to agree with him, although that wasn't really what I was getting at. To restate dbaron's argument in my own words: 1. There is a known issue affecting both beta and aurora nightly builds. 2. Either the issue is or isn't serious enough to warrant closing the aurora tree. 3. If it is serious enough to warrant closing the aurora tree, it seems unlikely to me that the mere fact that we don't run these tests on beta nightlies means that it is not serious enough to warrant closing the beta tree. 4. If on the other hand it's not serious enough to warrant closing the beta tree, that indicates we're willing to ship with these failures, which indicates that perhaps the Aurora tree should not remain closed. 5. Therefore we should probably either close both Aurora and Beta or close neither, unless something other than the fact that we don't run the relevant tests on Beta mitigates the issue's impact there. The key point to this argument is that the fact of whether we do or don't run a given set of tests on the beta tree does not affect the seriousness of the issue on that tree. -Justin On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
