On 2/9/18 9:30 AM, ha...@mozilla.com wrote:
> - Treeherder session will stay alive as long as access to the site
> happens once every 24 hours. 3 days session expiry is no longer in
> effect.
This doesn't seem to be the case: I'm logged in when I go to bed, and 7
hours later when I get up I'm logg
On 10/10/16 11:57 AM, Jonathan Griffin wrote:
> We may implement these wireframes for non-sheriffs, or on a per-user basis,
> or only for Try.
Thinking in terms of "developers look at single pushes on try, sheriffs
look at multiple pushes on non-try" is wrong on all four counts. Many of
the develo
On 11/21/13, 11:43 AM, Laura Thomson wrote:
> If you don't know what that is--and few people do, which is even more
> reason to shut it off--it's a search engine for some of our CVS
> repositories, of which I think none are in active development.
Thanks for the reminder that it still exists - I ju
On 4/26/13 8:11 AM, Justin Lebar wrote:
>> So what we're saying is that we are going to completely reverse our
>> previous tree management policy?
>
> Basically, yes.
>
> Although, due to coalescing, do you always have a full run of tests on
> the tip of m-i before merging to m-c?
It's not just
On 4/26/13 8:25 AM, Wesley Johnston wrote:
> Maybe. I started to avoid it if possible around then, but almost 4 hours for
> results still is basically unusable.
Tell me about it - that's actually the same as the end-to-end on
inbound/central. Unfortunately, engineering is totally indifferent to
t
On 4/25/13 4:47 PM, Wesley Johnston wrote:
> Requesting one set of tests on one platform is a 6-10 hour turnaround for me.
That's surprising. https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=9d1daf69061d
was a midday -b do -p all -u all with a 3 hour 40 minute end-to-end.
Or did you mean, as a great many p
On 4/25/13 1:12 PM, Ed Morley wrote:
> On 25 April 2013 20:14:10, Justin Lebar wrote:
>>> Is this what you're saying?
>>> * 10.6 opt tests - per-checkin (no change)
>>> * 10.6 debug tests- reduced
>>> * 10.7 opt tests - reduced
>>> * 10.7 debug tests - reduced
>>>
>>> * redu
On 4/24/13 9:50 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> No. But that's not what I was talking about. Whether something lands
> directly on try is a judgement call, and some people may be better at it
> than others. As someone who has stopped using try server as a rule
> (because of the excessive wait times t
On 4/22/13 12:54 PM, Kartikaya Gupta wrote:
> I looked at all the build.json files [4] from the 6th of April to the
> 17th of April and pulled out all the jobs that corresponding to the
> "push" changesets in my range above. For this set of 553 changesets,
> there were 500 (exactly!) distinct "buil
On 1/18/13 2:06 PM, Mihai Sucan wrote:
> At this point I hope aurora reopens ASAP. Apologies for the trouble.
Nope. The devtools leaks, while interesting and potentially troublesome,
weren't really a significant tree-closing problem.
Now we're down to Linux64 and Win7 both failing (by which I mea
10 matches
Mail list logo
