On Feb 13, 2012, at 6:47 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Stephen White
> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> I don't know about other organizations, but from Apple's point of view, it's
> rare that we'd want to publicly promise that
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Stephen White wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> I don't know about other organizations, but from Apple's point of view,
>> it's rare that we'd want to publicly promise that we'll never implement
>> something. We'd just want t
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Feb 13, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I do agree that distinguishing "test not applicable to this port" from
>>> "this test is temporarily failing f
On Feb 13, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>>
>> I do agree that distinguishing "test not applicable to this port" from "this
>> test is temporarily failing for unknown reasons" is a good thing to do. It
>> is unfortunate tha
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2012, at 1:40 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>> On Feb 10, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > For example, we might want to use only Skipped files for tes
On Feb 13, 2012, at 1:40 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>
> >
> > For example, we might want to use only Skipped files for tests that
> > are always planned to be skipped, and test_expectations
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>
> > I think at one point Adam indicated he wanted to use them for the
> > Apple Win port, but he is still using the Skipped files since the Win
> > port is still using ORWT on the bots.
>
On Feb 10, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> I think at one point Adam indicated he wanted to use them for the
> Apple Win port, but he is still using the Skipped files since the Win
> port is still using ORWT on the bots.
>
> That said, I understand why you're asking this (I think), but I
I added some list to test_expectations.txt for skipping test since chromium
port has not implemented applicationCache.abort() but in windows port.
see https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76270
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:07:38 -0800, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>Do any non-chromium ports want to use test_ex
I think at one point Adam indicated he wanted to use them for the
Apple Win port, but he is still using the Skipped files since the Win
port is still using ORWT on the bots.
That said, I understand why you're asking this (I think), but I would
prefer that we not have to support both options indefi
Do any non-chromium ports want to use test_expectations.txt instead of or
in addition to Skipped files? I think we should only allow one or the other
per port. Having both for all ports keeps causing confusion.
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists
11 matches
Mail list logo
