Adopting the mozilla-central superreview policy in comm-central

Justin Wood (Callek) callek at
Tue Jun 15 06:53:29 UTC 2010

  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?

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?

~Justin Wood (Callek)

More information about the tb-planning mailing list