If we compile locally before testing in automation, we're no longer testing
the same bits that we're going to be shipping. That's a major change in
direction, and one that may have significant consequences.
An additional historical reason for keeping development tools off test
machines: we once s
Worth noting that, at least for a while, our desktop-test Docker
images did include a compiler for other purposes, so the
library-dependency risk is already present.
Explicit checks for that seem like the right approach. I believe we
have a few (around glibc symbols, at least) but perhaps not
com
> On Sep 22, 2016, at 17:27, Aki Sasaki wrote:
>
> If we compile locally before testing in automation, we're no longer testing
> the same bits that we're going to be shipping. That's a major change in
> direction, and one that may have significant consequences.
We would only compile tests i
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Nicholas Alexander
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>
>> For years it has been a common pattern for local builds and Firefox
>> automation to copy test files to the object directory (or some other
>> staging area) and run them fr
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> For years it has been a common pattern for local builds and Firefox
> automation to copy test files to the object directory (or some other
> staging area) and run them from there. This creates several inefficiencies:
>
> * The build system m
5 matches
Mail list logo
