On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpra...@google.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote: >> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpra...@google.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> > I remember some discussion of a [rebaseline] keyword in >> >> > TestExpectations, >> >> > but I'm not sure that ever made it in? >> >> >> >> The [ NeedsRebaseline ] enhancement is, as of yet, unimplemented and >> >> unclaimed [2]. It shouldn't be too hard for someone to try it if >> >> they're looking for a reason to explore the NRWT code :) >> > >> > >> > I object to adding such a thing. People add and forget about these >> > entries >> > way too often: >> > >> >> The rationale for adding the keyword was precisely this ... it would >> make it easier to programmatically identify tests needing updated >> baselines and alert people :). >> >> Do you have an alternative you'd suggest for keeping people from >> forgetting (particularly in the case where we have an expected failure >> waiting on a bug fix)? > > Just turn bots red. People maintaining bots will notice and rebaseline them > as needed. >
If there's a significant time lapse between failing test and bug fix, it seems like a bad idea to leave the tree red. Are you suggesting we should land a "failling" baseline in the meantime? -- Dirk _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
