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
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
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,
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
