(In reply to Daniel Holbert [:dholbert] from comment #11) > So: I'm going to leave that one annotated, and I'll update the annotation to point at bug 1700803, and I'm hoping that I can redirect emilio's comment 3 into poking at that test-failure over there to see how much we should worry about it. Sorry, reconsidering again: I guess the current failure-annotation there is dependent on linux+fission+ASAN. So apparently the plain "linux+fission" failure rate (the rate I was worried about in comment 10) hasn't actually been abysmally high, or else it would've caused more noise in bug 1700803. So: I'll land the patch as-posted after all, and if the failure rate ends up being too high in some configuration, we'll find out and can take action in bug 1700803.
Bug 1713912 Comment 13 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
(In reply to Daniel Holbert [:dholbert] from comment #11) > So: I'm going to leave that one annotated, and I'll update the annotation to point at bug 1700803, and I'm hoping that I can redirect emilio's comment 3 into poking at that test-failure over there to see how much we should worry about it. Sorry, reconsidering again: I guess the current skip-annotation there is dependent on linux+fission+ASAN. So apparently the plain "linux+fission" failure rate (the rate I was worried about in comment 10) hasn't actually been abysmally high, or else it would've caused more noise in bug 1700803. So: I'll land the patch as-posted after all, and if the failure rate ends up being too high in some configuration, we'll find out and can take action in bug 1700803.