On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Mark Rowe <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 10, 2011, at 14:27, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Mark Rowe <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Jul 10, 2011, at 13:57, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Mark Rowe <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> On 2011-07-10, at 13:20, Adam Barth wrote: >>>>>> Sure. I'll highlight the relevant section of my original email: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> These changes have the following virtues: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A) The resulting fallback graph will be a tree, making the fallback >>>>>>> graph easier to understand for both humans and automated tools. >>>>> >>>>> I don't see how Windows falling back to mac-snowleopard has any effect on >>>>> that. It's no different than mac-leopard in that regard. Then again, >>>>> maybe the diagram is trying to convey something that I'm missing due to >>>>> having no idea what the difference is between the myriad of different >>>>> line styles in the diagram. >>>> >>>> Notice that the circle for "win" has two arrows emanating from it. >>>> One of those arrows goes to "mac" and the other goes to >>>> "mac-snowleopard". That means that of the fallback paths that transit >>>> "win", one path flows through "mac-snowlepard" where as the remainder >>>> flow through "mac". If we change "win" to fall back to "mac", then >>>> the graph becomes more tree-like. (If make change (2) as well, then >>>> the graph globally becomes a tree.) >>> >>> Can you please clarify what the edges in your diagram, along with what the >>> different line styles, represent? >> >> Sure. > > Thanks. My confusion here comes from the idea that Windows falling back on > SnowLeopard causes some sort of "non-tree"-like complexity that other > platforms falling back via SnowLeopard aren't also subject to. The behaviour > of Leopard and Windows seems incredibly similar in this regard so I'm very > unclear as to why only Windows is problematic.
Being a tree is a global property, not a local property. There are two edges emanating from "win". In order for the graph to be a tree one of them must be removed. Neither one, in isolation, makes the graph not a tree. > There's an additional confusing element here: Only a subset of Lion-specific > results are currently checked in. The difference between mac and > mac-snowleopard results is likely much bigger than you realise. Ah, well, I, of course, can't see invisible results. Adam _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
