The state of the Aurora branch

2013-01-17 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
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 information posted on there and I saw that it was easily reproducible

Re: The state of the Aurora branch

2013-01-17 Thread Ed Morley
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

Re: The state of the Aurora branch

2013-01-17 Thread Boris Zbarsky
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

Re: The state of the Aurora branch

2013-01-17 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
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

Re: The state of the Aurora branch

2013-01-17 Thread Ben Hearsum
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

Re: The state of the Aurora branch

2013-01-17 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
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

Re: The state of the Aurora branch

2013-01-18 Thread L. David Baron
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

Re: The state of the Aurora branch

2013-01-18 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
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

Re: The state of the Aurora branch

2013-01-18 Thread Justin Lebar
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

Re: The state of the Aurora branch

2013-01-18 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
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

Re: The state of the Aurora branch

2013-01-18 Thread Justin Lebar
> 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

Re: The state of the Aurora branch

2013-01-18 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
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

Re: The state of the Aurora branch

2013-01-18 Thread L. David Baron
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

Re: The state of the Aurora branch

2013-01-18 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
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

Re: The state of the Aurora branch

2013-01-18 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
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

Re: The state of the Aurora branch

2013-01-18 Thread Mihai Sucan
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

Re: The state of the Aurora branch

2013-01-18 Thread Phil Ringnalda
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

Re: The state of the Aurora branch

2013-01-19 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
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

Re: The state of the Aurora branch

2013-01-19 Thread Ed Morley
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

Re: The state of the Aurora branch

2013-01-20 Thread Justin Wood (Callek)
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

Re: The state of the Aurora branch

2013-01-20 Thread Nicholas Nethercote
>> 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

Re: The state of the Aurora branch

2013-01-20 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
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