> The problem I worry about is that on future Mac OS X releases, rendering of > shapes may change in some tiny way that is not visible but enough to cause > failures at tolerance 0. In the past, such false positives arose from time to > time, which is one reason we added pixel test tolerance in the first place. I > don't think running pixel tests on just one build slave will help us > understand that risk. > > Why not start with some low but non-zero tolerance (0.1?) and see if we can > at least make that work consistently, before we try the bolder step of > tolerance 0? > > Also, and as a side note, we probably need to add more build slaves to run > pixel tests at all, since just running the test suite without pixel tests is > already slow enough that the testers are often significantly behind the > builders. > > Regards, > Maciej Running pixel test with a tolerance of 0.1 is still better than don't run pixel tests at all. So if we get a consensus with a small tolerance, I'm fine. And yes, we might get problems with a new MacOS release. We have a lot of differences (<0.1%) between 10.5 and 10.6 right now. But I don't see a problem with it as long as someone manages the results. Niko and I are doing it for SVG on MacOSX 10.6 and also continue it on 10.5 for a while.
Dirk _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
