> This has one significant drawback: it places a pretty serious burden on > whoever performs the sync. In particular, in addition to merging the > actual code (already needs some expertise), they become responsible for > handling any test failures that arise as a result of changes in the "other" > repo. > > I personally prefer having to do a controlled tough sync every now and then over the lockstep thing.
Also, we can alleviate part of this by doing syncs smartly. Just because you *can* make a change without touching Gecko CI doesn't mean you should :) If the reviewer thinks that a change to Servo style is expected to affect Gecko, a gecko-try run should be made too with a sync applied (this automation is easy enough to write). Once it merges, perform a sync if you feel it necessary. This lets changes like refactorings, dependency updates, etc become less of a pain, while actual changes affecting both will still be tested. The reverse can also exist, as a checkbox in the trychooser interface. -Manish Goregaokar _______________________________________________ dev-servo mailing list dev-servo@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-servo
