Filed https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56988.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> It could just be a bug with WebKitTestRunner; it may be failing to focus
> the window.
>
> - Maciej
>
> On Mar 22, 2011, at 10:45 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>
> Actually, looks like thi
It could just be a bug with WebKitTestRunner; it may be failing to focus the
window.
- Maciej
On Mar 22, 2011, at 10:45 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> Actually, looks like this is a WebKit2-related bug. It just happens that this
> is the only non-pixel test that depends on the window having focus.
On Mar 23, 2011, at 3:33 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
While this is certainly technically feasible, it would add a huge amount
of overhead to the process of performing a submission.
>>>
>>> How often do you submit WebKit to the Apple internal build system? If
>>> that's sensitive informatio
Will do.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Adam Roben wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2011, at 1:47 AM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>
> > People who work on WebKit2: should I check in the failing result and/or
> does someone want to look into the focus issue?
>
> Checking in failing results and filing a bug would be g
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Avi Drissman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>
>> For example, the following fails on my SnowLeopard machine due to lacking
>> the focus ring:
>> run-webkit-tests --debug -2 fast/css/focus-ring-outline-color.html -p
>> --tolerance 0
>
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:33 PM, David Levin wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>>
>> $ time git svn rebase
>> [... update my working copy from changes during lunch (four revisions)
>> ...]
>> real 1m10.316s
>> user 0m8.194s
>> sys 0m16.400s
>>
>> $ time ./
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> Indeed. I suspect (2) and (3) are worth doing regardless.
>
> AFAIK, gyp currently always regenerates everything and then compares the new
> versions to the old to see if it actually nee
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> Indeed. I suspect (2) and (3) are worth doing regardless.
>
AFAIK, gyp currently always regenerates everything and then compares the new
versions to the old to see if it actually needs to touch the files on disk.
This seems safe but slow.
P
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Mark Rowe wrote:
> On 2011-03-23, at 13:49, Adam Barth wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:33 PM, David Levin wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
$ time git svn rebase
[... update my working copy from changes during lunch (fou
On 2011-03-23, at 13:49, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:33 PM, David Levin wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>>> $ time git svn rebase
>>> [... update my working copy from changes during lunch (four revisions)
>>> ...]
>>> real1m10.316s
>>> user
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:33 PM, David Levin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> $ time git svn rebase
>> [... update my working copy from changes during lunch (four revisions)
>> ...]
>> real 1m10.316s
>> user 0m8.194s
>> sys 0m16.400s
>>
>> $ time ./Tools/S
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>
> $ time git svn rebase
> [... update my working copy from changes during lunch (four revisions) ...]
> real1m10.316s
> user0m8.194s
> sys 0m16.400s
>
> $ time ./Tools/Scripts/generate-project-files
> real0m4.339s
> user0m3.
On 2011-03-23, at 12:29, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Mark Rowe wrote:
>> On 2011-03-23, at 12:17, Adam Barth wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Mark Rowe wrote:
On 2011-03-23, at 03:33, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Mark Rowe
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Mark Rowe wrote:
> On 2011-03-23, at 12:17, Adam Barth wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Mark Rowe wrote:
>>> On 2011-03-23, at 03:33, Adam Barth wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Mark Rowe wrote:
> On 2011-03-22, at 23:50, Adam Barth w
On 2011-03-23, at 12:17, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Mark Rowe wrote:
>> On 2011-03-23, at 03:33, Adam Barth wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Mark Rowe wrote:
On 2011-03-22, at 23:50, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Mark Rowe
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Mark Rowe wrote:
> On 2011-03-23, at 03:33, Adam Barth wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Mark Rowe wrote:
>>> On 2011-03-22, at 23:50, Adam Barth wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Mark Rowe wrote:
> Product names for targets are redundan
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:33 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Mark Rowe wrote:
> >> In any case, I'm glad we've found a technically feasible solution.
> >
> > We've had at least one technically feasible solution from day zip: check
> in the generated project files.
>
> F
On 2011-03-23, at 03:33, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Mark Rowe wrote:
>> On 2011-03-22, at 23:50, Adam Barth wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Mark Rowe wrote:
>
Product names for targets are redundantly declared in the Xcode project
when they're
On Mar 23, 2011, at 1:47 AM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> People who work on WebKit2: should I check in the failing result and/or does
> someone want to look into the focus issue?
Checking in failing results and filing a bug would be great.
-Adam
___
webkit-d
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> For example, the following fails on my SnowLeopard machine due to lacking
> the focus ring:
> run-webkit-tests --debug -2 fast/css/focus-ring-outline-color.html -p
> --tolerance 0
>
This sounds very familiar to me. On Snow Leopard (not on Leop
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Mark Rowe wrote:
> On 2011-03-22, at 23:50, Adam Barth wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Mark Rowe wrote:
>>> On 2011-03-22, at 19:16, Adam Barth wrote:
WebKit-folk,
With a bunch of help from Dimitri and Eric, we now have a functioning
>>>
As of r81742, WebKit supports the :-webkit-any pseudoclass. Our current
implementation matches Mozilla's AFAIK. There's a couple changes I'd like to
make though.
1. Allow a group of selectors as the argument to :-webkit-any instead of a
sequence of simple selectors. See
http://lists.w3.org/Archive
On 2011-03-22, at 23:50, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Mark Rowe wrote:
>> On 2011-03-22, at 19:16, Adam Barth wrote:
>>> WebKit-folk,
>>>
>>> With a bunch of help from Dimitri and Eric, we now have a functioning
>>> GYP-based build for the Apple Mac port. There are stil
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Mark Rowe wrote:
>> The default configuration is Debug rather than Production.
>
> Thanks. I thought I had fixed that, but I'll investigate this issue
> some more. I understand that this is a hard requirement
24 matches
Mail list logo
