On Nov 12, 2013, at 9:55 PM, Huo, Halton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> I thing it would be better to squash so that we can revert easily if needed >> (and specially useful for bisect). Btw but I'm sure you are aware, these >> commits need to go through review before landing. > [halton] Aleis and Raphael, thanks for the commits. Your reason does make > sense to me, I'll squash them all when pushing. > > I do have questions on how to review the rebasing patches: > 1. What the review process for the rebasing patches? I do not think PR to > crosswalk-project repos is good because it need freeze them.I prefer to give > my repos link, is that okay to you? " So you need to create an extra branch in chromium-crosswalk and blink-crosswalk that points to vanilla upstream branch, that one doesn’t need review as it’s just a raw « copy". Then you need to point us the master branches of chromium-crosswalk and blink-crosswalk based on the new version in your private with the rebased patches, that’s how I did with Jesus the last rebase. I think rebasing is pretty ok to do, please tell us where you had problems so we (everyone) can take a closer look. > 2. Who should the reviewer? Alexis, Kenneth, Caio, Raphael, who else? Everyone should swing by and help. Final LGTM are business as usual depending where you fixed. > 3. And which way do you want to review? Multiple commits or all-in-one commit? The build fixes in Crosswalk you can upload it prior to close the tree. All in one was the approach of the previous rebase, I’m fine with that. > >> No this is incorrect. The third digit is the build number which is unrelated >> to the other bits. You should not modify it, the canary builder will do that >> for you. Just let it the way it is in master. > > [halton] Thanks for the info, I'll keep the build number untouched. _______________________________________________ Crosswalk-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.crosswalk-project.org/mailman/listinfo/crosswalk-dev
