Bug 143314

Summary: REGRESSION(r182174): Try to correct EWS failures (Requested by bfulgham on #webkit).
Product: WebKit Reporter: WebKit Commit Bot <commit-queue>
Component: New BugsAssignee: WebKit Commit Bot <commit-queue>
Status: RESOLVED FIXED    
Severity: Normal CC: rniwa, youennf
Priority: P2    
Version: 528+ (Nightly build)   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Bug Depends on:    
Bug Blocks: 142400, 143135    
Attachments:
Description Flags
ROLLOUT of r182174 none

Description WebKit Commit Bot 2015-04-01 12:16:30 PDT
http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/182174 broke the build:
Try to correct EWS failures (Requested by bfulgham on #webkit).

This is an automatic bug report generated by webkitbot. If this bug
report was created because of a flaky test, please file a bug for the flaky
test (if we don't already have one on file) and dup this bug against that bug
so that we can track how often these flaky tests fail.
Comment 1 WebKit Commit Bot 2015-04-01 12:17:05 PDT
Created attachment 249938 [details]
ROLLOUT of r182174

Any committer can land this patch automatically by marking it commit-queue+.  The commit-queue will build and test the patch before landing to ensure that the rollout will be successful.  This process takes approximately 15 minutes.

If you would like to land the rollout faster, you can use the following command:

  webkit-patch land-attachment ATTACHMENT_ID

where ATTACHMENT_ID is the ID of this attachment.
Comment 2 WebKit Commit Bot 2015-04-01 12:21:03 PDT
Comment on attachment 249938 [details]
ROLLOUT of r182174

Clearing flags on attachment: 249938

Committed r182248: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/182248>
Comment 3 WebKit Commit Bot 2015-04-01 12:21:06 PDT
All reviewed patches have been landed.  Closing bug.
Comment 4 Brent Fulgham 2015-04-01 13:00:28 PDT
It looks like this did correct the problem. We really need a better way to identify these kinds of failures before they manifest as EWS failures. :-(
Comment 5 youenn fablet 2015-04-01 22:38:37 PDT
(In reply to comment #4)
> It looks like this did correct the problem. We really need a better way to
> identify these kinds of failures before they manifest as EWS failures. :-(

Any idea what caused the issue?