We have already people looking at it. https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58847 is an example.
But exactly as Benjamin said, we're just unstaffed. On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Benjamin Poulain <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/01/2011 09:46 AM, ext Zoltan Horvath wrote: >> >> Currently, we are running qtwebkit-tests on our bots, but does it make >> sense to run these? >> Now, 203 are passed, 6 are failed, 2 are skipped. Is this acceptable? >> It keeps our bot always orange. I don't think that it is a good message >> that we have API regressions. >> >> It would be really nice if someone from Nokia side could make time to >> take care API-tests (if these are important of course). >> >> Any thoughts and/or volunteers? > > They are important. > The problem is we are currently understaffed due to an internal Nokia > project taking lots of engineers. > > I suggest to add "expected failure" exceptions for the failing tests. And > create a P1 tasks for each one. > > Failing API tests are particularly dangerous for releases. It is one of the > focus of QtWebKit 2.2. Anyone is welcome to help on this problem. > > cheers, > Benjamin > _______________________________________________ > webkit-qt mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-qt > -- Alexis Menard Software Engineer INdT Recife Brazil _______________________________________________ webkit-qt mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-qt
