On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Etienne Segonzac <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So we're fine with the system that didn't work for 2.5 and we're making no > promise for the future. > Nice commitment to performance. > I'd hardly say that what we've built doesn't have a positive impact towards performance. The fact that this conversation can even exist with real data is a testament to how far we've come. The intent of my email was not to back people into corners and play blame games, but just to shine a light as to what things look like right now so owners and peers have ammunition to make decisions. Let me repeat what I just said, because it is the crux of the problem: *The current scope of performance automation is not in the state that it is something automatically sheriffable. We've built up the tools and infrastructure from almost the ground-up and it has accomplished exactly what it was set out to do: to put the knowledge of performance and problems into the hands of owners and peers to make their own decisions.* Automating performance is usually not a binary decision like a unit test. It takes analysis and guesswork, and even then it still needs human eyes. Rob and I are working towards making this better, to automate as much as possible, but right now the burden of making the tough calls still lies with those landing patches. We equip you to make those determinations until we have more tooling and automation in place for the sheriffing to actually be an option, because right now *it is not*. To be honest, most of the bugs we file against performance see very little activity or are acted on too late. In my eyes, for those components it may just not be as high a priority as other issues. I can't really blame owners for this, because I believe we have a history of making performance a lower priority than it should be. Specifically, I have been involved in almost every conversation about performance requirements since approximately v1.4, and those requirements have been abandoned every single time. Yes, that even includes v2.5. If there is a problem with the way things are done, let's get these out on the table, and actually stick to our guns when we say that we believe in performance. :) Eli
_______________________________________________ dev-fxos mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos
