On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Jeremy Orlow <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Eric Seidel <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Jeremy Orlow <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> If it does work, we could definitely let them know it's an option for >>> those who might want to. We'd have to phrase it delicately though. They're >>> generally quite allergic to us even coming _close_ to pushing >>> our infrastructure on them. >>> >> >> Google has it's own fair dose of "not invented here". :) >> > > True. > Any specifics? I think we've been pretty good about investing in tooling that gives us a big payback. We've also made good use of existing tools where we could (e.g., buildbot). > > >> WebKit has been quite receptive of the recent script additions we've made, >> including check-webkit-style (originally cpplint.py) which was entirely >> Google code. The entire commit-queue architecture they're now using was >> written by Google employed WebKit contributers (myself, Adam Barth and Dave >> Levin). >> >> I don't mean to pick a fight, but I just don't think this should be a we >> vs. they argument. Google employs 4 WebKit reviewers (myself, Adam Barth, >> Dimitri Glazkov and Darin Fisher). Reviewers tend to make the decisions in >> WebKit land. Furthermore, Apple tends to follow the saying "code wins", >> meaning: given two ideas, one of which is coded and the other which is not >> the coded one wins. :) If a Googler produces functioning WebKit try bots, >> the WebKit community certainly isn't going to turn them down. >> > > I hope your right. I'm not convinced this is a given though. > > >> I think Google employed WebKit contributers should feel full license to >> set up try bots integrated with WebKit's buildbot. I think Googlers should >> also feel welcome to augment/replace parts of WebKit's buildbot architecture >> with our improved versions from build.webkit.org. >> > > This has not always been true in the past. I think we (people working on > Chromium) made a good effort to help bring real code review infrastructure > to WebKit and that was a disaster (though maybe I don't know the full story > and we were in the wrong). > > I agree that things are getting better, but I don't think the picture is > quite as rosy as you paint it. (And I know many who think I paint the > picture rosier than it actually is.) > > We lose some credibility / community leverage so long as we are not on par with other ports w.r.t. our presence on build.webkit.org. We also need to finish and upstream the WebKit API so that our port in svn.webkit.org is complete. -Darin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
