On 11/22/2013, 3:44 PM, Johnathan Nightingale wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
>
>> On 11/21/2013 4:56 PM, John O'Duinn wrote:
>>> 6) If a developer lands a patch that works on 10.9, but it fails somehow
>>> on 10.7 or 10.8, it is unlikely that we would back out the fix
On 11/22/2013, 12:29 PM, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
>
> I think this plan is generally sound. Users are moving en-masse to 10.9
> with the free update, so we should focus our resources there, and keep
> 10.6 around to support those users that can't update for hardware
> reasons. I just have one point o
Yes, that's right.
Moving it to back fill in low demand would make it more noticeable.
We have to have backfilling coverage tools to fix this in the coming year.
Thanks Mike.
Sent from Samsung tabletMike Hommey wrote:On Fri, Nov 22,
2013 at 08:33:31AM -0800, Armen Zambrano Gasparnian
> This
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 08:33:31AM -0800, Armen Zambrano Gasparnian
> This would still have to deal with not getting immediate feedback for
> commits on 10.7 and 10.8 and how to deal with backouts and regression
> hunting.
Note that part is already a problem caused by coalescing.
Mike
___
I want to explicitely disable *all* 10.7 testing (unlike mentioned on point 8)
at once by the end of Tuesday as it gains us no clear value (please help me if
I'm missing anything wrt to its value on release branches).
I would like to have this extra 10.6 machines verified in preparation for the
On Nov 22, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
> On 11/21/2013 4:56 PM, John O'Duinn wrote:
>> 6) If a developer lands a patch that works on 10.9, but it fails somehow
>> on 10.7 or 10.8, it is unlikely that we would back out the fix, and we
>> would instead tell users to upgrade to 10.9 anyw
Hi Andrew,
That's good to know. Thanks!
Sent from Samsung tabletAndrew McCreight wrote:Note
that we currently have a large set of intermittent 10.8 OSX opt-only
leaks-until-shutdown with the debugger:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=942102
I don't know if these will show up o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I think this plan is generally sound. Users are moving en-masse to 10.9
with the free update, so we should focus our resources there, and keep
10.6 around to support those users that can't update for hardware
reasons. I just have one point of content
- Original Message -
> From: "Mike Hommey"
> To: "John O'Duinn"
> Cc: "dev. planning" ,
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org, "release"
> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 1:34:46 AM
> Subject: Re: Proposed changes to RelEng&#
Note that we currently have a large set of intermittent 10.8 OSX opt-only
leaks-until-shutdown with the debugger:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=942102
I don't know if these will show up on 10.9 or not, or if they really matter
that much.
Andrew
- Original Message -
> t
hi Nick;
Yes, there was/is a bug about osx10.9 compiler issues, see bug#936977
for details. However, that bug specifically happens with builds-only,
and is unrelated to this tests-only proposal. I'm not aware of anything
preventing us from running 10.9 *testing*.
Hope that helps.
John.
=
On 1
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 04:56:50PM -0500, John O'Duinn wrote:
> 6) If a developer lands a patch that works on 10.9, but it fails somehow
> on 10.7 or 10.8, it is unlikely that we would back out the fix, and we
> would instead tell users to upgrade to 10.9 anyways, for the security fixes.
It's not
Last I heard, the official recommendation from IT was for Mozilla
folks (esp. devs) to not upgrade to 10.9 yet, because some things
might not work. Is that no longer the case?
Nick
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lis
tl;dr: In order to improve our osx10.6 test capacity and to quickly
start osx10.9 testing, we're planning to make the following changes to
our OSX-build-and-test-infrastructure.
1) convert all 10.7 test machines as 10.6 test machines in order to
increase our 10.6 capacity.
2) convert all 10.8 test
14 matches
Mail list logo
