On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:28 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
We could do this, but we'd have to add logic to track when directories
were done, and arbitrarily delay printing results about other
directories
2009/12/10 Sofia Tahseen sofia.tahs...@gmail.com:
You are so right, Joel... I corrected my .so and now I could build the
chrome browser ...finally!! I copied the whole /src/out/Release directory
to my jaunty on the BeagleBoard(256MB RAM). I try to launch chrome through:
./chrome
It starts up
(Resending from chromium.org)
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
After reading the WebGL blog post today, and following the link to the wiki,
it struck me as fairly *bad* that we are telling people to disable the
sandbox. A good number of folks are going
Automatically closing tree for compile on Webkit Mac Builder
http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/waterfall/builders/Webkit%20Mac%20Builder/builds/6
http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/waterfall/waterfall?builder=Webkit%20Mac%20Builder
--= Automatically closing tree for compile on Webkit Mac
This is exactly what I was thinking. An infobar is the right choice in my
opinion.
Having a modal dialog on startup for those who use this switch regularly due
to issues, should not be suddenly have a *really annoying* modal dialog
every time they start their browser.
An infobar, on the other
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Kenneth Russell k...@chromium.org wrote:
(Resending from chromium.org)
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
After reading the WebGL blog post today, and following the link to the
wiki,
it struck me as fairly *bad* that we
Greetings chromium-developers, sheriffs, and troopers,
As you can see in our buildbot waterfall page, three build bots has
been stopping for a long time, Chromium Linux, Chromium Linux x64,
Modules Linux since I noticed they seemed to be sick and stopped
building them. Unfortunately, I wasn't
Yes, a periodic inforbar would be swell and fairly effective. in my opinion.
☆PhistucK
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:57, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Kenneth Russell k...@chromium.org wrote:
(Resending from chromium.org)
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at
I believe the most elegant and quick (seemingly) solution is to provide the
extension developers a field (in the extension gallery, not in the extension
itself) that will include the platform and the version.
Going farther, you can add a check if the platform and the version (or even
let the
One viewpoint I haven't seen mentioned on this thread is from that of
the extension developer. Suppose they write, from their perspective, a
perfectly good extension that uses binary components. After being
around for a few weeks, they notice they have a 2-star rating and a
lot of angry comments
The goal is to annoy you so you will try to stop passing these arguments.
Don't we already have other infobars possibly showing at startup (e.g.,
restore tabs)?
-darin
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote:
I also like the infobar on start, especially if there's
If I'm running on Windows, I know to ignore the latter. That's a
pretty big difference.
-- Dirk
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Avi Drissman a...@chromium.org wrote:
What the difference between:
★ this extension doesn't work at all wh
and
★ As mentioned, this
Automatically closing tree for compile on Chromium Builder
http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/waterfall/builders/Chromium%20Builder/builds/20276
http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/waterfall/waterfall?builder=Chromium%20Builder
--= Automatically closing tree for compile on Chromium Builder =--
Right, but the rating average doesn't take that into account.
Avi
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@google.com wrote:
If I'm running on Windows, I know to ignore the latter. That's a
pretty big difference.
-- Dirk
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Avi Drissman
*
I am going to turn off the AsyncSlowStart experiment, but wanted to send the
results for the curious minded.
What is the feature:*
Some time ago, I observed that windows asynchronous IO may delay handing an
IO completion to the application when only part of the requested IO can
complete.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
The goal is to annoy you so you will try to stop passing these arguments.
Don't we already have other infobars possibly showing at startup (e.g.,
restore tabs)?
Yes. It looks a little silly -- you get two of them stacked
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:57 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
As for the info bar/modal dialog: I've been thinking for a bit, and I'm
not sure this is enough. We have plenty of data that shows users often
leave browsers open for a very long time. The main risk is that someone
As for the info bar/modal dialog: I've been thinking for a bit, and I'm
not sure this is enough. We have plenty of data that shows users often
leave browsers open for a very long time. The main risk is that someone
sets the flag, starts their browser, trys out the new cool feature, and then
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
I don't understand the argument for a periodic indicator. We don't have a
periodic indicator telling the user when to restart their browser to pick
up
auto-updates.
I don't think this is a fair comparison. One is a
But, as I understand, some people do use it due to issues with the sandbox,
real issues, system incompatibilities.
That would be really unfair towards them.
☆PhistucK
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 20:43, Glen Murphy g...@chromium.org wrote:
As for the info bar/modal dialog: I've been thinking for
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:01 AM, PhistucK phist...@gmail.com wrote:
But, as I understand, some people do use it due to issues with the sandbox,
real issues, system incompatibilities.
That would be really unfair towards them.
Most issues should be fixable. We need to hear about problems the
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Glen Murphy g...@chromium.org wrote:
As for the info bar/modal dialog: I've been thinking for a bit, and I'm
not sure this is enough. We have plenty of data that shows users often
leave browsers open for a very long time. The main risk is that someone
sets
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
I don't think we should take away --no-sandbox in official builds. It's a
valuable debugging tool in case an end-user is experiencing a startup crash
or other wackiness.
I understand the argument, but do we really end
[from right address]
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Steve VanDeBogart vand...@google.comwrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Scott Hess sh...@chromium.org wrote:
[[And now I'm waiting for someone to suggest the
--no-really-no-sandbox-i-like-being-insecure flag to suppress the
Sigh. Now from the right email address.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Ojan Vafai o...@google.com wrote:
I thought we had agreed on printing out any unexpected failures in
real-time, no?
Also, I do think it would be worthwhile to print each directory as it
finishes. We're getting to the
(adding Alice)
Alice: do you have a rough estimate for how often we ask users to turn off
the sandbox when debugging problems?
Thanks
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:33 AM, John Abd-El-Malek j...@chromium.orgwrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
I
You mean they were manually pre-created, right?
I used a custom action with success and I believe that sounds better for
module updates purposes.
Perhaps we should consider adding a new target type, say, 'config', which
would invoke configure automatically.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:07 PM,
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Ojan Vafai o...@google.com wrote:
I thought we had agreed on printing out any unexpected failures in
real-time, no?
Also, I do think it would be worthwhile to print each directory as it
finishes. We're getting to the point where we shard all the big
And then an infobar would show up (only in the first time) and tell them
they can be relieved since they are secure again? ;)
Sounds like an appropriate Google joke.
☆PhistucK
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 21:40, Steve VanDeBogart vand...@chromium.orgwrote:
[from right address]
On Fri, Dec 11,
Igor Gatis wrote:
You mean they were manually pre-created, right?
Yes
I used a custom action with success and I believe that sounds better for
module updates purposes.
We used to do things like that in the pre-GYP days. When we moved our
builds over to GYP, we decided that it wasn't
Alice's reply is below. I'm still convinced that Google Chrome shouldn't
run without the sandbox, and if someone needs that, then they can use
Chromium builds.
We actually rarely ask users to turn off the sandbox and after we confirm
that they can run it with the flag, we tell them do remove it
We actually rarely ask users to turn off the sandbox and after we confirm
that they can run it with the flag, we tell them do remove it immediately
due to security vulnerabilities. The only problem is that after this point,
it's hard for users to figure out what's preventing Google Chrome to run
Hi Joel/Erik/All,
I don't think armv5 is an issue. Reason being I used the jaunty armv5
libraries to build chrome.
I tried to debug the issue with gdb.
gdb chrome
GNU gdb 6.8-debian
Copyright (C) 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Sofia Tahseen sofia.tahs...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Joel/Erik/All,
I don't think armv5 is an issue. Reason being I used the jaunty armv5
libraries to build chrome.
I tried to debug the issue with gdb.
gdb chrome
GNU gdb 6.8-debian
Copyright (C) 2008 Free
Hi all,
Bringing this topic back again. I've been able to show notifications from
our extension, with a friendly name in the from label. What I'm not able
to do is communicate with the background page. Is this implemented or not
yet?
Thanks
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Aaron Boodman
35 matches
Mail list logo
