Adopting the mozilla-central superreview policy in comm-central

Ludovic Hirlimann ludovic at
Tue Jun 15 06:44:42 UTC 2010

 On 13/06/10 04:05, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
>  On 6/12/2010 5:52 AM, Mark Banner wrote:
>>  On 12/06/2010 03:00, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
>>>  On 6/11/2010 1:39 PM, Dan Mosedale wrote:
>>>>  On 6/10/10 4:59 PM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
>>>>> Now I know TB has required tests, but we are still in a way "O,
>>>>> orange; must be a perma orange, likely not my fault" general
>>>>> mentality on trunk.
>>>> Now that 3.1 is in release candidate mode, the trunk is being
>>>> whipped gradually back into shape.
>>> Of course, but TB also runs much less tests than SeaMonkey, even
>>> with its added MozMill tests (That SM does not yet run). I don't
>>> know of any way to get TB to run the relevant tests reliably, but
>>> that does make it less tests as well that are run relating to core
>>> code.
>> I assume by "much less tests" you're referring to mochitest, reftest
>> and all. If so, that has basically been a conscious decision that we
>> do not need to run those tests constantly because Firefox is running
>> them for us. Yes, some of the core code base is slightly different,
>> and there may be one or two areas that running the tests against
>> Thunderbird may reveal something, but on the whole, we're just
>> letting the Firefox builders do the work for us there.
> For 99.9% of the tests, I agree; for the other .1% I don't think the
> effort to try and run them is worth it.
While I agree for nightlies. I still think it would be worth the effort
on release builds.


Ludovic Hirlimann MozillaMessaging QA lead

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 259 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the tb-planning mailing list