I would be in favor of #2 -- retrieving the WebViewDelegate associated with
the requestorID.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 5:25 PM, John Abd-El-Malek j...@chromium.org wrote:
two questions:1) app cache won't be used with workers, right? or is the
goal for XHR requests from workers go through app
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Aaron Boodman a...@chromium.org wrote:
Extensions comrades,
Here are my takeaways on what we can improve based on Glen's experience:
* Make the id field optional for development mode
* We should add a temporary alert box saying success after
installation
Usually when I create a new file, I just copy some old one, but then I
get the copyright date wrong, or forget to update the include guards.
I just fixed a lot of incorrect include guards in our code, which were
clearly mistakes from manually typing out the names. It could be much
easier, so
If you synced to rev 11870, please do a clean build. Thanks.
Jian
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
If you skip 11870 and sync to any revision after that, you do not need to do
a clean build. My change will be reland tomorrow. Sorry for any
inconvenience.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Jian Li jia...@chromium.org wrote:
If you synced to rev 11870, please do a clean build. Thanks.
Jian
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:56:27AM -0700, George Djabarov wrote:
Somewhat unrelated to the mail thread, but isn't the copyright year
supposed to be first publication date-last update date format?
As I under stand it, individual files should have the year in which they
were created and then
Did this ever get resolved?I'd be eager to hear about any trouble with gyp.
-BradN
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Jim Roskind j...@chromium.org wrote:
Just a wild guess... please ignore if this is not applicable:
Any chance you pulled on Friday eve between 5pm and 8pm pacific time? If
It randomly happen on windows try slave every day.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Bradley Nelson bradnel...@google.comwrote:
Did this ever get resolved?I'd be eager to hear about any trouble with
gyp.
-BradN
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Jim Roskind j...@chromium.org wrote:
Just a
I think I see what's happening.maruel, do I understand correctly that the
trybot syncs to the revision the patch is based on before applying it? It
looks like when folks with patchs prior to the base-gyp switch do a try,
that it rolls things back, which doesn't work right.
If folks sync before try
The problem with that list is that we alternately generate the sln
files (from gyp), and then try to update and revert them via svn. The
remnant files generated by gyp screw up the process :-(.
To make it all work in the interim, you need to add step between 1 and 2 that:
1a) Delete sln and
Jim Roskind wrote:
The problem with that list is that we alternately generate the sln
files (from gyp), and then try to update and revert them via svn. The
remnant files generated by gyp screw up the process :-(.
OK, that's bad. I thought Brad took steps to ensure that we'd either
generate
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Mark Mentovai m...@chromium.org wrote:
Marc-Antoine Ruel wrote:
They are not svn:ignored.
OK, anything that's GYP-generated does need to be in svn:ignore.
Not understanding why?
One of the thing I'm afraid of is that even if a
generated .vcproj is
Bradley Nelson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Mark Mentovai m...@chromium.org wrote:
OK, anything that's GYP-generated does need to be in svn:ignore.
Not understanding why?
The try servers clean out previous state with gclient revert, which
will remove any file that shows up as ? in
Bradley Nelson wrote:
It certainly was my intention to have atomic changes that remove sln/vcprojs
in the same change that causes them to be generated.
Did you mean something stronger Mark?
Nope, that's exactly what I meant and all of the changelists I saw
from you did do this. It seems that
14 matches
Mail list logo
