I like the variant model as well. Perhaps I can rephrase my question.
How can we not klobber each other here? Should I land what I've got, and
you can adapt it once you implement variants? Or should I throw it away?
jrg
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Mark Mentovai <m...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Steven Knight wrote:
> > What's the workflow for enabling coverage in this model? "gclient
> runhooks
> > --force -Dcoverage=1" and then re-start XCode?
> >
> > That doesn't seem natural for the Linux side, but I could live with it.
> > Linux devs: comments?
>
> I think that the variant model is a stronger way to handle coverage.
>
> Once we do have a variant-based model to handle coverage, the only
> thing missing from John's work would be the coverage-running target.
> We could easily retain that target, unconditionally, and just have the
> script be a no-op (or fail) when run on a coverage-free variant.
>
> Long-term, we might even want to integrate the coverage runner stuff
> more directly into GYP, the way we have done with test runners.
>
> Mark
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
