On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 6:37 PM, David Levin wrote:
>
> Exactly :)
What are you saying, the rest of the WebKit community doesn't want to
spend weeks perfecting the architecture to make my life easier? :)
When the need comes, it'll be done. Which may be never, but that's life.
--
Regards,
Ryan
_
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Ryan Leavengood wrote:
> There may be a time when I do this work, but I have bigger fish to fry at
> the moment...
>
Exactly :)
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listi
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 6:12 PM, David Levin wrote:
>
> I suspect the pain hasn't been big enough so far for any person/organization
> to decide to address this.
Well it may not really be worth the trouble, I just always found the
#ifdefs in WebCore/platform to be a little smelly. But they work.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Ryan Leavengood wrote:
> I personally would like to see WebCore
> evolve into being as self-contained as possible, with clear APIs for a
> platform to attach to.
>
I suspect the pain hasn't been big enough so far for any
person/organization to decide to address thi
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>
> Hopefully we will start writing more and more tests as reftests, to
> address the first category. Moving to one of the existing cross-port
> build mechanisms like GYP or CMake would help.
Yeah I will attempt to make use of GYP myself for the
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Ryan Leavengood wrote:
> Actually regarding the 42,000 changesets: these have all come in the
> last year and a half (), and are almost as many changesets as ever
> came before in the current WebKit repo. This is exponential growth!
> How is a small port possib
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
>
> It seems like either you should be a private fork/port, or a public
> upstreamed one, but not both. If you want to live in the upstream tree, I
> think most of your development work should land quickly in public. If you
> want to work in
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Ryan Leavengood wrote:
> The primary problem with our port right now is some of the developers
> made the choice (which I objected to) to make our own Subversion repo
> containing the WebKit code to make it easier (in their eyes) to
> develop the port.
>
> Where can
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Eric Seidel wrote:
>
> I think any time the larger community is spending more effort than the
> port authors on a particular port we should be wary about keeping the
> port.
Yes this is totally reasonable.
> Certainly that indicates that either our base-costs for
Hello all,
Sorry for the delay in response to this, I don't follow this mailing
list closely, obviously. I just happened to search for Haiku, and was
not too shocked to see this message. Given that the Haiku port has now
been removed (in fact, Adam did it right on September 25 when this
message wa
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> Yeah, I'm not sure where we should draw the line, but this case seems
>> pretty clearly in the "unmaintained" camp, as was the old Android
>> port. Maybe a good rule of thumb is something
Fair enough. Rough consensus among reviewers sound good to me.
- Ryosuke
On Sep 25, 2011 11:16 AM, "Geoffrey Garen" wrote:
>> Following this pattern, giving a warning then waiting for some period of
time might be sufficient. e.g.
>> Warn the port (probably on webkit-dev)
>> Wait for six months
>>
> Following this pattern, giving a warning then waiting for some period of time
> might be sufficient. e.g.
> Warn the port (probably on webkit-dev)
> Wait for six months
> If there's no activity in step 2 to counter the argument, then remove the
> port.
You might think this leniency is friendly
I think removing Haiku port is a good thing given they don't even have build
bots or EWS bots. We can't even tell if they compile or not.
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
>
> Yeah, I'm not sure where we should draw the line, but this case seems
> pretty clearly in the "unmaintai
> As part of our effort to reduce complexity in WebKit, I believe it is
> now time to remove the Haiku port.
+1
Geoff
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Xan Lopez wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> As part of our effort to reduce complexity in WebKit, I believe it is
>> now time to remove the Haiku port.
>
> Perhaps it would make sense to have a small set of simple rules
> written down
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
> As part of our effort to reduce complexity in WebKit, I believe it is
> now time to remove the Haiku port.
Perhaps it would make sense to have a small set of simple rules
written down somewhere that would justify the WebKit developers in
removi
On April 9, 2010, I wrote an email to webkit-dev asking if it was time
to remove the Haiku port:
http://old.nabble.com/Archiving-the-Haiku-port--(was-WebKit2-and-all-that-jazz)-td28197730.html
At the time, the port appeared inactive. Stephan Assmus and Maxime
Simon wrote that they planned to con
18 matches
Mail list logo
