[webkit-dev] can we stop using Skipped files?

[Balazs Kelemen]

On 06/08/2012 05:21 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Balazs Kelemen<kbalazs at webkit.org>  wrote:
>
>> On 06/08/2012 09:46 AM, Osztrogonac Csaba wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Dirk Pranke írta:
>>>> I believe most if not all of the ports have started using either
>>>> TestExpectations files or a combination of TestExpectations files
>>>> (except for the Apple Win port).
>>>>
>>>> Can we explicitly switch to the TestExpectations files at this point
>>>> and drop support for Skipped files on the other ports (and perhaps
>>>> disable old-run-webkit-tests for all but apple win)?
>>> Until NRWT can't handle cascaded TestExpectations - https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65834,
>>> Qt port can't drop supporting Skipped files. We have many tests skipped in qt-5.0, qt-5.0-wk1,
>>> qt-5.0-wk2, wk2 Skipped lists. We can't migrate all of them to the only one TestExpectations.
>>>
>>> And I disagree with disabling ORWT at all. Qt port still support using ORWT locally.
>>> It is better for gardening than NRWT. NRWT regularly has problems with generating
>>> new results for a given platform dir (qt,qt-5.0,qt-5.0-wk1,...), it doesn't support
>>> the good --skipped=only option . If folks don't want to use it, just not use, but
>>> disabling for everyone by fiat isn't a friendly thing.
>> 1. These are real weaknesses of nrwt, we should fix them. If gardening is better with orwt (i doubt that is the case, but I don't do gardening regularly), we should improve nrwt, i.e. reimplement features from orwt.
> I applaud your enthusiasm.
>
>> 2. I believe basically everybody agrees that we should drop orwt, except you Ossy. Maybe I'm wrong. So, is there anybody still want to have support for orwt? If so, why?
> I'm with Ossy on this.
>
> Getting rid of ORWT would be a show stopper for me.
>
> This talk of fixing bugs in NRWT is really great but until such time as those bugs are fixed, let's keep ORWT.
>

Understandable. Let me make it clear: I don't prefer one over the other. 
I believe it's contra-productive that some people/bots use this, and 
others use that. It adds overhead to bot maintainance, it's bad for 
developer experience, and it blocks the evolution of the one and only 
tool - because some people still make efforts on fixing/improving the 
other instead.