On 2013-01-20 9:40 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
Of the three options I present, the one that I think has the
strongest support and least opposition among the developers
investigating the problems is option 2:
# (2) Disable the testpilot extension on aurora using the patch in
# comment 48
>> Of the three options I present, the one that I think has the
>> strongest support and least opposition among the developers
>> investigating the problems is option 2:
>>
>> # (2) Disable the testpilot extension on aurora using the patch in
>> # comment 48, and reopen mozilla-aurora. comment
Ed Morley wrote:
> On 19 January 2013 15:01:09, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
>> dbaron posted a summary of our options on release-drivers
>
> Please can that be posted somewhere public for those of us not on
> release-drivers?
Not seeing anything that need be kept private, I'll forward a post or
two her
On 19 January 2013 15:01:09, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> dbaron posted a summary of our options on release-drivers
Please can that be posted somewhere public for those of us not on
release-drivers?
Cheers,
Ed
(Away until Monday 21st Jan)
___
dev-platform m
dbaron posted a summary of our options on release-drivers. He and I
recommended disabling the testpilot extension completely as a solution.
I guess we'll wait until somebody approves doing that.
Cheers,
Ehsan
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platfo
On 1/18/13 2:06 PM, Mihai Sucan wrote:
> At this point I hope aurora reopens ASAP. Apologies for the trouble.
Nope. The devtools leaks, while interesting and potentially troublesome,
weren't really a significant tree-closing problem.
Now we're down to Linux64 and Win7 both failing (by which I mea
Hello everyone!
A summary of the situation:
1. bug 824016 was a known intermittent failure that we believe we fixed in
m-c with bug 827083. I did some important changes to how the web console
initializes / destroys - changes that we hope allow us to better ensure in
our tests that we liste
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:50 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Friday 2013-01-18 11:49 -0500, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> > I see. I think your assumption in point #2 above is mistaken. We
> > do not close trees because of the gravity of issues affecting the
> > code base. We do close them when there
On 2013-01-18 10:35 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On related news, this thread diverged into multiple different private
threads, and it seems like the devtools team has two patches in bugs
824016 and 774619 which can probably help. I have asked them to land
both patches as they don't require approval
On Friday 2013-01-18 11:49 -0500, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> I see. I think your assumption in point #2 above is mistaken. We
> do not close trees because of the gravity of issues affecting the
> code base. We do close them when there are busted builds or failing
> tests because those prevent proper
On 2013-01-18 11:35 AM, Justin Lebar wrote:
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 clos
> 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 t
On 2013-01-18 11:03 AM, Justin Lebar wrote:
Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:39 AM, L. David Baron 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 b
Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:39 AM, L. David Baron 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 ni
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:39 AM, L. David Baron 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 an
On Thursday 2013-01-17 17:58 -0500, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> The Aurora tree was closed yesterday by Ed because of the perma-orange
> failure filed in bug 823989, which went unnoticed for quite some time
> before Ed closed the tree. This morning, I tried to reproduce the bug
> locally using the info
See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=831868.
Cheers,
Ehsan
On 2013-01-17 11:05 PM, "Ben Hearsum" wrote:
> Seems like we should make test pilot being built or not an explicit
> decision rather than one dependent on channel name...or make sure it's
> built for all aurora builds rather
Seems like we should make test pilot being built or not an explicit
decision rather than one dependent on channel name...or make sure it's
built for all aurora builds rather than just nightlies in some other way.
On 01/17/13 10:58 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> They define MOZ_UPDATE_CHANNEL=aurora wh
They define MOZ_UPDATE_CHANNEL=aurora which causes the testpilot extension
to be built among other things.
Cheers,
Ehsan
On 2013-01-17 10:20 PM, "Boris Zbarsky" wrote:
> On 1/17/13 6:21 PM, Ed Morley wrote:
>
>> On 17 January 2013 22:58:20, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
>>
>>> The Aurora tree was closed
On 1/17/13 6:21 PM, Ed Morley wrote:
On 17 January 2013 22:58:20, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
The Aurora tree was closed yesterday by Ed because of the perma-orange
failure filed in bug 823989, which went unnoticed for quite some time
Both the failure fixed by Ehsan & the remaining ones on aurora are
On 17 January 2013 22:58:20, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> The Aurora tree was closed yesterday by Ed because of the perma-orange
> failure filed in bug 823989, which went unnoticed for quite some time
Both the failure fixed by Ehsan & the remaining ones on aurora are
Nightly-only.
Unfortunately tests r
21 matches
Mail list logo
