[chromium-dev] Re: Webkit merges and tree closures

[Nate Chapin]

I think it would be a good idea to ensure that there is at least someone on
call to help new gardeners if they have questions or find themselves in a
mess.  I know I just asked dglazkov whenever I wasn't sure what to do, but
he'd probably appreciate not being the only designated knowledgeable person.
:-)
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Glenn Wilson  wrote:

> I'll take the action item to remove anyone in the rotation who is not
> actively working on Webkit / is not a committer.
>
> In the past, I've floated the idea in the past of having a "Webkit deputy"
> who helps the gardener keep the canary green.  I'm not sure if that would
> help, though.
>
> Regards,
> Glenn
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 8:40 AM, David Levin  wrote:
>
>> I find that being a WebKit gardener is always dancing on a minefield
>> regardless of my familiarity with the WebKit code base. Look at yesterday
>> for an example.
>> In addition, we have several gardeners who are not actively working on
>> WebKit (amanda@ has 0 WebKit commits, pinkerton@ has a few all in 2008).
>>
>> Lastly, can we add anyone to the rotation who has ideas how WebKit
>> gardeners should/can do their job better? (This will help them in getting
>> more ideas.)
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Dimitri Glazkov 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Mike Pinkerton 
>>> wrote:
>>> >> It is hard to be a WebKit gardener if you do not have WebKit commit
>>> access.
>>> >> Sometimes the gardener has to commit a quick bustage fix upstream or
>>> roll
>>> >> back a fellow Chromium committers change to WebKit.
>>> >> -Darin
>>> >
>>> > Correct, it is hard, but many/most of us who are webkit
>>> > sheriffs/gardeners are not webkit committers (for example, the entire
>>> > mac group). I don't understand your point. Are you saying that only
>>> > webkit committers should be on the webkit sheriff rotation?
>>>
>>> In my experience, better familiarity with WebKit code base is a huge
>>> advantage for a gardener. I am almost tempted to say that if you're
>>> not actively working on WebKit, being a gardener will be a foreign and
>>> "dancing-on-a-minefield"-type task.
>>>
>>> :DG<
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> >
>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com 
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: 
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[chromium-dev] Re: Missing config.h?

[Nate Chapin]

Nitpick: Always include config.h in an implementation file, never in a
header file.(http://webkit.org/coding/coding-style.html)

~Nate, who has gotten dinged in reviews repeatedly for that mistake.

On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:

>
> This is more of a WebKit-land question, rather than Chromium-land
> question. And yes, it's basically a rule on WebKit-land -- always
> include config.h.
>
> You may want to raise the idea of a presubmit check on webkit-dev.
>
> :DG<
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
> >
> > I just got bitten by failing to
> >
> > #include "config.h"
> >
> > in a file. This caused that file to have a different version of KURL
> > from the rest of the code (it did not use GOOGLEURL, whereas the rest
> > did) with predictably bad results.
> >
> > I'm wondering whether either:
> >
> > a) Including config.h wherever its needed, or
> >
> > b) Having a test to check it is included spread about the place
> >
> > is a good idea? Certainly would've saved me some time.
> >
> > >
> >
>
> >
>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com 
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: 
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[chromium-dev] V8 bindings are now fully upstreamed!

[Nate Chapin]

As of r20923, src/webkit/port/ has been deleted and the last of the V8
bindings are living in svn.webkit.org.  There's still some cleanup of
the bindings to be done, but they are all upstream now.  Hopefully
this will make everyone's life a little easier.

If you're reading this email, you probably deserve thanks for one or
more of the following reasons:
* You authored a V8 binding upstreaming patch
* You reviewed a V8 binding upstreaming patch
* You suffered through an extended build breakage caused by a V8
binding upstreaming patch

Thanks!
~Nate

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com 
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: 
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---