[Webkit-unassigned] [Bug 153194] [GTK] maps.google.com unresponsive/stalls in 2.11.3

[bugzilla-daemon at webkit.org]

https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153194

--- Comment #11 from Carlos Garcia Campos <cgarcia at igalia.com> ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > (In reply to comment #6)
> > > (In reply to comment #5)
> > > ...
> > > > I don't think it's a matter of number of commits, we had a lot of commits in
> > > > this release because it took a bit more time since the laste release. All
> > > > commits landed are bug fixes, rendering issues, crashes and security bugs.
> > > > What should I leave out? I always try to avoid major refactorings, or large
> > > > changes in JSC. For every commit I merge, if it's JSC I run all the
> > > > javascript tests, if it's a rendering issue or crash referencing layout
> > > > tests I run those, and if it affects the GTK API I run the GTK API tests. I
> > > > could still merge a commit that breaks something or regresses, of course,
> > > > but that wouldn't change if I merged fewer commits.
> > > 
> > > I agree it is not the number of commits but maybe the criteria could be
> > > slightly changed.
> > > 
> > > What about only merging:
> > > * fixes of bugs reported to the stable branch.
> > > * security fixes
> > > * other kind of fixes that have been already merged in
> > > (current_unstable_version - 1) and no regressions have been reported on them.
> > > 
> > > WDYT?
> > 
> > That doesn't fix anything either, because for example in this particular
> > case we don't know which commit in trunk broke maps.google.com. I prefer to
> > fix 10 issues and introduce 1 regression than fixing 5 issues with no
> > regressions. In any case I always try to avoid merging commits that have
> > been recently committed in trunk, so I'm doing something similar already in
> > the end.
> 
> Obviously, you will always will have the risk of introducing regressions.
> That's never guaranteed. The question is which is the priority in stable and
> I disagree with you.

I don't think that's the question, the question is whether I could have avoided the regression using a different merge strategy.

> You should try as hard as possible to avoid introducing
> regressions so I would favor fixing 5 issues with no regressions than the
> other way around.

I already try as hard as possible to avoid introducing regressions, the fact that I prefer to fix 10 bugs instead of 5 and introduce 1 regression doesn't mean I'm careless when merging commits. And the key point, again is that I couldn't have avoided this regression just by being more careful. The only way to be more careful is having a bot that runs all the tests for every commit merged in the stable branch, but that would be a lot more work, and it woulnd't be enough either. Again this regression was not caught by our bots in trunk either. And of course I can't run all the tests for every merge myself, 2.10.5 took me 3 days full time merging commits, so I would need 3 weeks to do the same running the tests.

> Anyway, just my opinion.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-unassigned/attachments/20160122/90152568/attachment.html>