<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.webkit.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - [GTK] maps.google.com unresponsive/stalls in 2.11.3"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153194#c11">Comment # 11</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - [GTK] maps.google.com unresponsive/stalls in 2.11.3"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153194">bug 153194</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:cgarcia@igalia.com" title="Carlos Garcia Campos <cgarcia@igalia.com>"> <span class="fn">Carlos Garcia Campos</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=153194#c8">comment #8</a>)
<span class="quote">> (In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=153194#c7">comment #7</a>)
> > (In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=153194#c6">comment #6</a>)
> > > (In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=153194#c5">comment #5</a>)
> > > ...
> > > > 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.</span >
I don't think that's the question, the question is whether I could have avoided the regression using a different merge strategy.
<span class="quote">> 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.</span >
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.
<span class="quote">> Anyway, just my opinion.</span ></pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>