On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Andrew Halberstadt <[email protected]> wrote: > I would guess the former is true in most cases. But at least there we have a > *chance* at tracking down and fixing the failure, even if it takes awhile > before it becomes annoying enough to prioritize. If we made it so > intermittents never annoyed anyone, there would be even less motivation to > fix them. Yes in theory we would still have a list of top failing > intermittents. In practice that list will be ignored.
Is this better or worse than the status quo? Just because a bug happens to have made its way into our test suite doesn't mean it should be high priority. If the bug isn't causing known problems for users, it makes sense to ignore it in favor of working on bugs that are known to affect users. Why not let the relevant developers make that prioritization decision, and ignore the bug forever if they don't think it's as important as other things they're working on? _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
