Adopting the mozilla-central superreview policy in comm-central

Ludovic Hirlimann ludovic at
Tue Jun 15 06:56:59 UTC 2010

On 15/06/10 08:53, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
>  On 6/15/2010 2:44 AM, Ludovic Hirlimann wrote:
>>   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.
> Why? Data?

Greemlins will always krept-in where you don't look. Having 100%
coverage is better than 99,9% - and that's why I only care about release

> Do you assert that Core will break in odd ways that will not also be
> covered by SeaMonkey and/or Firefox running those test suites?

No. I'm just saying I'll sleep better if we test 100% on release builds
than 99,9%. And we might end up in issues not being visible in the
eamonkey branch , nor the Ff, because of some weird and yet undiscovered
HG bug. So I think It make sense to do it on our 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