On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpra...@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpra...@google.com> wrote: > >> Are you suggesting we should land a "failling" baseline in the meantime? > > > > > > No. I'm suggesting patch authors perform their due diligence and either > ask > > port maintainers to rebaseline or rebaseline tests themselves. > > > > I think either you misunderstood my question, or I am misunderstanding > your answer. I'm not asking "who", I'm asking "what" ... > > If we know some tests are failing, and when we fix a bug the tests > will start passing again (but that patch might not land for quite some > time), what should we (anyone) do in the meantime? Leave the tree red, > land "incorrect" -expected baselines so that we can catch changes in > behavior, or add lines to TestExpectations? Many of the lines you > cited fell into the last category. > Either one of those two solutions would work (although I strictly advice we do the latter) when there are failing tests and we need a fix in order for those tests to pass but I'm not interested in discussing that matter at the moment. I'm specifically opposed to adding new entries to TestExpectations for the sole purpose of rebaselining them later. - R. Niwa
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
