skia roll to 9323b01e90f81cc809fa4dbed638163f182432a4

skia roll to 9323b01e90f81cc809fa4dbed638163f182432a4


TBR=

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=278139

[reed1, 2014-06-18 13:05:11]

The CQ bit was checked by reed@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-18 13:10:20]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/reed@google.com/342693002/1

[reed1, 2014-06-18 15:40:54]

The CQ bit was unchecked by reed@google.com

[reed1, 2014-06-18 15:47:25]

The CQ bit was checked by reed@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-18 15:48:24]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/reed@google.com/342693002/20001

[reed1, 2014-06-18 17:15:00]

I see the failure (again). Does this mean the suppressions is (again) not
working, or is this just a property (bug) of try-bots?

[f(malita), 2014-06-18 17:17:48]

On 2014/06/18 17:15:00, reed1 wrote:
> I see the failure (again). Does this mean the suppressions is (again) not
> working, or is this just a property (bug) of try-bots?

The latter: looks like that layout bot ran with an older Chromium revision
(prior to the text suppression).

[reed1, 2014-06-18 17:23:26]

On 2014/06/18 17:17:48, Florin Malita wrote:
> On 2014/06/18 17:15:00, reed1 wrote:
> > I see the failure (again). Does this mean the suppressions is (again) not
> > working, or is this just a property (bug) of try-bots?
> 
> The latter: looks like that layout bot ran with an older Chromium revision
> (prior to the text suppression).

Ah, is this because I didn't wait for chrome to roll forward to a newer webkit?
Do I need to wait for that now?

[chromium-reviews, 2014-06-18 17:24:06]

Sorry this is causing so much pain -- No one mentioned that text
suppressions had to be handled separately from visual regressions.

Greg Humphreys | Software Engineer [skia, chrome] | humper@google.com |
434-260-0543


On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 1:23 PM, <reed@google.com> wrote:

> On 2014/06/18 17:17:48, Florin Malita wrote:
>
>> On 2014/06/18 17:15:00, reed1 wrote:
>> > I see the failure (again). Does this mean the suppressions is (again)
>> not
>> > working, or is this just a property (bug) of try-bots?
>>
>
>  The latter: looks like that layout bot ran with an older Chromium revision
>> (prior to the text suppression).
>>
>
> Ah, is this because I didn't wait for chrome to roll forward to a newer
> webkit?
> Do I need to wait for that now?
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/342693002/
>

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[f(malita), 2014-06-18 17:33:54]

On 2014/06/18 17:23:26, reed1 wrote:
> On 2014/06/18 17:17:48, Florin Malita wrote:
> > On 2014/06/18 17:15:00, reed1 wrote:
> > > I see the failure (again). Does this mean the suppressions is (again) not
> > > working, or is this just a property (bug) of try-bots?
> > 
> > The latter: looks like that layout bot ran with an older Chromium revision
> > (prior to the text suppression).
> 
> Ah, is this because I didn't wait for chrome to roll forward to a newer
webkit?
> Do I need to wait for that now?

To be honest, I'm not sure what the *_layout bots are running these days - IIRC
the blink_* bots are the new-good-stuff we're supposed to use. Maybe Eric knows.

Did you fire that layout bot manually? In this particular case it just looks
like it picked a slightly older Chromium revision (278056) vs. the suppression
(278067). Not sure what's causing the lag - but the roll still looks good to me.


On 2014/06/18 17:24:06, chromium-reviews wrote:
> Sorry this is causing so much pain -- No one mentioned that text
> suppressions had to be handled separately from visual regressions.


No worries, we certainly don't expect Skia rolls to cause layout text diffs.
This is a rare occurrence, likely due to a poor test.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-18 18:59:06]

Change committed as 278139