On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Dirk Pranke <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dpranke@google.com" target="_blank">dpranke@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <<a href="mailto:rniwa@webkit.org">rniwa@webkit.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Dirk Pranke <<a href="mailto:dpranke@google.com">dpranke@google.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div><div class="im">>> Are you suggesting we should land a "failling" baseline in the meantime?<br>
><br>
><br>
> No. I'm suggesting patch authors perform their due diligence and either ask<br>
> port maintainers to rebaseline or rebaseline tests themselves.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>I think either you misunderstood my question, or I am misunderstanding<br>
your answer. I'm not asking "who", I'm asking "what" ...<br>
<br>
If we know some tests are failing, and when we fix a bug the tests<br>
will start passing again (but that patch might not land for quite some<br>
time), what should we (anyone) do in the meantime? Leave the tree red,<br>
land "incorrect" -expected baselines so that we can catch changes in<br>
behavior, or add lines to TestExpectations? Many of the lines you<br>
cited fell into the last category.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Either one of those two solutions would work (although I strictly advice we do the latter) when there are failing tests and we need a fix in order for those tests to pass but I'm not interested in discussing that matter at the moment.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I'm specifically opposed to adding new entries to TestExpectations for the sole purpose of rebaselining them later.</div><div><br></div><div>- R. Niwa</div><div><br></div></div>