I think such a build would be useful for performance testing of the rest of our infrastructure. It also makes having a webkit.org chromium-webkit build easier. I'm not sure how hard maintaining such a build would be with the new gyp goodness.
-eric On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Dimitri Glazkov<[email protected]> wrote: > > Team, > > Now that we're unforked, we want to concentrate on eliminating layout > test failures. Through the magic of the WebKit merge, we've > accumulated quite a few. Today, we expect around 400 failures, which > is not a good number by any stretch. > > As one of the ways to help determine the source of the failures, I > propose that we resurrect the JSC build (and builder), so that we can > say with a fair degree of certainty if the cause is in the V8 > bindings. > > Those of you who were involved in maintaining a JSC build of Chromium > before may experience painful flashbacks and shortness of breath. My > hope is that this time around we should have easier time, since we're > unforked and the Script* abstractions are pretty well-defined to keep > most of the nasties at bay. Additionally, having gyp is certainly a > super-great help. > > Based on the IM/hallway conversation, Dave Levin, Dmitry Titov, myself > and possibly a few others might be interested in helping out with the > project. We don't want this to be more than a 10% effort on our parts. > Since we hope to have a JSC build bot and ideally a canary bot, we may > need some help from the infrastructure gods. > > So, do you think that resurrecting the JSC build is a: > > a) terrible idea > b) great idea > c) whatcha talking bout, Willis? > > :DG< > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
