I don't think anyone systematically logs the false-positives. Is this the ts_paint regression you're referring to? https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/mozilla.dev.tree-alerts/ts_paint/mozilla.dev.tree-alerts/FArVsa8guXg/FfY91JK7AAAJ I don't think the perf sheriffs filed a bug for that one, so I think they knew it was a false positive. List of regression bugs filed for 42: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=1186954&hide_resolved=0
Also note that perf sheriffs will re-trigger 3 Talos runs for the suspected changeset and another 3 runs for the previous revision. It should be extremely rare for developers to get a 48-hour backout notification because of a (sustained) false positive. Joel: can you comment on the ts_paint false positive email above? On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Martin Thomson <m...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Vladan D <vdje...@mozilla.com> wrote: > > Tests are reliable if they detect regressions, aren't very noisy, and if > they measure things that have a real impact on actual Firefox user > experience. > > Do we track false positives on these? I say that because I got a mail > just last week for ts_paint that seemed spurious. > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
