> People may want to use the binary search. That would be great. Unfortunately I don't think anyone reports this behavior being extremely deterministic. Which means false positives happen unless a build is used for several days, and one individual doing a binary search might take a several weeks. Does anyone reliably reproduce this within a few hours? If not, then we need these reporters to divide and conquer, working back now from 2017-06-06. We don't need traces. We don't need logs. We only need to know the dates of the daily builds that fail, and there is a list in comment 195 (which I have just corrected). Richard took test#1 http://archive.mozilla.org/pub/thunderbird/nightly/2017/06/2017-06-06-03-02-05-comm-central/ We need others to pick test#2 - test#6. Or maybe take an older one - http://archive.mozilla.org/pub/thunderbird/nightly/2017/05/2017-05-25-03-02-23-comm-central/
Bug 1381485 Comment 212 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
> People may want to use the binary search. That would be great. Unfortunately I don't think anyone reports this behavior being extremely deterministic. Which means false positives happen unless a build is used for several days, and one individual doing a binary search might take a several weeks to complete a binary search. Does anyone reliably reproduce this within a few hours? If not, then we need these reporters to divide and conquer, working back now from 2017-06-06. We don't need traces. We don't need logs. We only need to know the dates of the daily builds that fail, and there is a list in comment 195 (which I have just corrected). Richard took test#1 http://archive.mozilla.org/pub/thunderbird/nightly/2017/06/2017-06-06-03-02-05-comm-central/ We need others to pick test#2 - test#6. Or maybe take an older one - http://archive.mozilla.org/pub/thunderbird/nightly/2017/05/2017-05-25-03-02-23-comm-central/