[webkit-dev] Please be cautious when rolling out old patches

2012-08-16 Thread Ryosuke Niwa
Hi, I don't think we should be rolling out patches that are 2-3 months old without fully understanding the consequences of doing so even if they had introduced a regression. I'd even argue that rolling out such an old patch should require a formal review. Best regards, Ryosuke Niwa Software

[webkit-dev] Proposal to enable compile flags only for EWS run

2012-08-16 Thread Bruno Abinader
Hi WebKit :) As previously discussed, we decided that compile flag only was the best option for CSS3 Text Decoration feature set (landed in http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/125716 ). I believe this was a general decision and got promptly implemented as such (however I still maintain a runtime

Re: [webkit-dev] Proposal to enable compile flags only for EWS run

2012-08-16 Thread Adam Barth
Currently the EWS bots use the same configuration as the bots on build.webkit.org. We do that so they give accurate information about what effect a given patch is going to have on the state of the tree when the patch lands. If we build using different flags on the EWS than on build.webkit.org,

Re: [webkit-dev] Proposal to enable compile flags only for EWS run

2012-08-16 Thread Adam Barth
Why not just build and run the tests locally? This sounds like a CSS feature that should more or less work the same for every port. Adam On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Peter Beverloo pe...@chromium.org wrote: Depending on how much longer the feature will be in development, it may not be

Re: [webkit-dev] Proposal to enable compile flags only for EWS run

2012-08-16 Thread Peter Beverloo
It depends on the kind of feature you're working on, indeed. While I don't know what Bruno's use-case is, In the case of text decoration, I guess it could involve testing the complex test code paths which can be different for port/platform combinations. Peter On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 6:00 PM,

Re: [webkit-dev] Proposal to enable compile flags only for EWS run

2012-08-16 Thread Peter Beverloo
Depending on how much longer the feature will be in development, it may not be worth setting up a new bot. Bruno seems to be mostly interested in getting EWS results, whereas results on the waterfall would only show up after committing the actual change. Something you could consider is to have a

Re: [webkit-dev] Proposal to enable compile flags only for EWS run

2012-08-16 Thread Adam Barth
In that case, he might want to start with one port, get that working well, and then expand to the other ports. Adam On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Peter Beverloo pe...@chromium.org wrote: It depends on the kind of feature you're working on, indeed. While I don't know what Bruno's use-case

Re: [webkit-dev] Proposal to enable compile flags only for EWS run

2012-08-16 Thread Bruno Abinader
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Adam Barth aba...@webkit.org wrote: In that case, he might want to start with one port, get that working well, and then expand to the other ports. Adam That's exactly what I am doing :) As I'm mostly familiar with Qt, it is the chosen platform were I am basing

Re: [webkit-dev] Proposal to enable compile flags only for EWS run

2012-08-16 Thread Ryosuke Niwa
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Bruno Abinader brunoabina...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Adam Barth aba...@webkit.org wrote: In that case, he might want to start with one port, get that working well, and then expand to the other ports. Adam That's exactly what I

Re: [webkit-dev] Proposal to enable compile flags only for EWS run

2012-08-16 Thread Peter Beverloo
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Bruno Abinader brunoabina...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Adam Barth aba...@webkit.org wrote: In that case, he might want to start with one port, get that working

Re: [webkit-dev] Proposal and WIP implementation for refactoring cross thread communication

2012-08-16 Thread Sam Weinig
Function is definitely useful in non-cross thread cases. It is analogous to std::function, and its use cases are very similar. Please don't rename it. -Sam On Aug 15, 2012, at 7:35 PM, Kwonjin Jeong g...@company100.net wrote: I also thought about what you said. But I'm not sure whether

Re: [webkit-dev] A proposal for handling failing layout tests and TestExpectations

2012-08-16 Thread Dirk Pranke
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote: I have a concern that a lot of people wouldn't know what the correct output is for a given test. For a lot of pixel tests, deciding whether a given output is correct or not is really hard. e.g. some seemingly insignificant

Re: [webkit-dev] A proposal for handling failing layout tests and TestExpectations

2012-08-16 Thread Dirk Pranke
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Filip Pizlo fpi...@apple.com wrote: 2) Possibility of the sheriff getting it wrong. (2) concerns me most. We're talking about using filenames to serve as a kind of unchecked comment. We already know that comments are usually bad because there is no

Re: [webkit-dev] A proposal for handling failing layout tests and TestExpectations

2012-08-16 Thread Ryosuke Niwa
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote: I think your observations are correct, but at least my experience as a gardener/sheriff leads me to a different conclusion. Namely, when I'm looking at a newly failing test, it is difficult if not impossible for me to

Re: [webkit-dev] A proposal for handling failing layout tests and TestExpectations

2012-08-16 Thread Ryosuke Niwa
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Filip Pizlo fpi...@apple.com wrote: On Aug 16, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Filip Pizlo fpi...@apple.com wrote: 2) Possibility of the sheriff getting it wrong. (2) concerns me most. We're talking about using

Re: [webkit-dev] A proposal for handling failing layout tests and TestExpectations

2012-08-16 Thread Ojan Vafai
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Filip Pizlo fpi...@apple.com wrote: 1) Switching to skipping flaky tests wholesale in all ports would be great, and then we could get rid of the flakiness support. Then you don't notice when a flaky tests stops being flaky. The cost of flakiness support on the

Re: [webkit-dev] A proposal for handling failing layout tests and TestExpectations

2012-08-16 Thread Ryosuke Niwa
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote: Like Filip, I'm extremely concerned about the prospect of us introducing yet-another-way-of-doing-things, and not be able to get rid of it later.

Re: [webkit-dev] A proposal for handling failing layout tests and TestExpectations

2012-08-16 Thread Ryosuke Niwa
1. On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.orgwrote: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Stephen Chenney schen...@chromium.org wrote: I agree with the priorities above, at least. I also agree with the overall goal of making our implementation match our philosophy on

Re: [webkit-dev] A proposal for handling failing layout tests and TestExpectations

2012-08-16 Thread Dirk Pranke
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Stephen Chenney schen...@chromium.org wrote: I agree with the priorities above, at least. I also agree with the

[webkit-dev] WebKitQt

2012-08-16 Thread blake fiddler
Hey! I have problem with WebKit Qt port build. Why you disable Qt4.x ??? As I can understand now WebkitQt works only with 5.0 version? But Qt5 isn't stable version - it's beta. ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org

Re: [webkit-dev] WebKitQt

2012-08-16 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:42 PM, blake fiddler blake.fidd...@gmail.comwrote: Hey! I have problem with WebKit Qt port build. Please address Qt related questions to the webkit-qt mailing list in the future. Why you disable Qt4.x ??? As I can understand now WebkitQt works only with 5.0