On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:06 AM, David Levin <le...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Here's a change that I felt worth getting someone to glance at but didn't > feel worth the overhead of a bug: > http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/81305 > > Since I was gardener and this was affecting the bots, it was a timely > situation. (Sometimes getting in your fix right before another break comes > in is important in these cases.) > > dave > > PS Dmitry found a flaw in my original change log text -- due to my haste, I > originally had put in the wrong valgrind error. > This seems like the kind of thing that'd be nice to put in the bug after the fact, no? :-) If the issue is simply one of overhead, then we should allow committers to omit change logs when they're not necessary as well. For example, no matter how one feels about ChangeLogs, I don't think it's possible to claim it's useful here: http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/81864 J > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jor...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Can you please explain why? Its very little overhead and is useful for >> tracking regressions and such. >> >> J >> On Mar 28, 2011 9:52 AM, "Darin Adler" <da...@apple.com> wrote: >> > On Mar 27, 2011, at 1:31 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: >> > >> >> I'd even go a bit further and say that if something is worth a review >> (even if it's over the shoulder), it's worth a bug + a bug number. >> > >> > This is where I do not agree. Review is a requirement, but I don’t think >> bugs.webkit.org should be. >> > >> > -- Darin >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> webkit-dev mailing list >> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev >> >> >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
