On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>
>> It should be fairly straight forward to create a tool that analyzes files
>> changed in each commit and deduce which tests' expected results have been
>> changed. The tool can then
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>>>
Quite frankly, I don't want it to be my (or anyone but pa
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>>
>>> Quite frankly, I don't want it to be my (or anyone but patch author's)
>>> job to take care of all these stale entries p
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>
>> Quite frankly, I don't want it to be my (or anyone but patch author's)
>> job to take care of all these stale entries people add.
>>
>
> I agree, but I think that sloppy follow-up do
On Feb 25, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 20
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> Quite frankly, I don't want it to be my (or anyone but patch author's) job
> to take care of all these stale entries people add.
>
I agree, but I think that sloppy follow-up doesn't mean the approach is
necessarily bad. We have to police our
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Dirk Pranke
>>> wrote:
>>> >
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Dirk Pranke
>> wrote:
>> >> Are you suggesting we should land a "failling" baseline in the
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> >> Are you suggesting we should land a "failling" baseline in the meantime?
> >
> >
> > No. I'm suggesting patch authors perform t
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>> Are you suggesting we should land a "failling" baseline in the meantime?
>
>
> No. I'm suggesting patch authors perform their due diligence and either ask
> port maintainers to rebaseline
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Rouslan Solomakhin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>>
>>> Are you suggesting we should land a "failling" baseline in the meantime?
>>>
>>
>> No. I'm suggesting patch authors pe
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>
>
>> I object to adding such a thing. People add and forget about these
>> entries way too often:
>>
>> # Needs rebaseline
>> fast/sub-pixel/inline-block-with-padding.html [ Failure ]
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Dirk Pranke
> >> > wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Dirk Pranke
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > I remember some discussion of a [rebaseline] keyword
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Dirk Pranke
> wrote:
> >
> >> > I remember some discussion of a [rebaseline] keyword in
> >> > TestExpectations,
> >> > but I'm not sure that ever mad
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Eric Seidel wrote:
>> > I've noticed as of late several different approaches being used when
>> > adding/changing LayoutTests which need rebaselinin
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Eric Seidel wrote:
> > I've noticed as of late several different approaches being used when
> > adding/changing LayoutTests which need rebaselining on other platforms.
> >
> > Obviously we cannot expect deve
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Eric Seidel wrote:
> I've noticed as of late several different approaches being used when
> adding/changing LayoutTests which need rebaselining on other platforms.
>
> Obviously we cannot expect developers to test/rebaseline on all platforms
> before landing given
I've noticed as of late several different approaches being used when
adding/changing LayoutTests which need rebaselining on other platforms.
Obviously we cannot expect developers to test/rebaseline on all platforms
before landing given our current infrastructure.
But what should we expect them to
> I was having a look at our Context Menu design when this USE flag got
> my attention. Can someone help me clarify the motivation for it?
The motivation is explained pretty well in the ChangeLog for r73802,
which introduced this flag. I'll try to give a little explanation here
too.
CROSS_PLATFOR
20 matches
Mail list logo
