As was mentioned already, we've been trying to follow the general guideline of
dropping the prefix when a draft hits CR and keeping it otherwise. An
exception to this rule is if our syntax has not yet been updated to match the
CR syntax, in which case we keep the prefix.
dave
___
Sounds good to me. Both patches have been updated to use -webkit.
Thank you for the explanation.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Darin Adler wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Dan Bernstein wrote:
>
> I think Eric is not asking about the unicode-bidi property, but rather about
> the isolate
On Mar 27, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Dan Bernstein wrote:
> I think Eric is not asking about the unicode-bidi property, but rather about
> the isolate value, which is not in CSS 2.1. I don’t know that there’s a
> guideline, but there is precedent for prefixing values (for example, display:
> box and d
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>> I think it's better to have no exceptions than a very narrow exception.
>>
>
> This seems to be a reason for saying we should always have a bug for
> anything that's reviewed..
Darin didn't want to explain, but I'll mention that there are occasionally
situations where non-bugzilla review is desirable. Sometimes, it is desirable
to avoid drawing attention to a change because it relates to confidential
unreleased products, and in such cases it may be necessary to do rev
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Mar 28, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Darin Adler wrote:
>
> > On Mar 28, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> >
> > Sure I am open to discussion about that. I think that some check-ins,
> especially LayoutTest ones, don’t need change log
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> I think it's better to have no exceptions than a very narrow exception.
>
This seems to be a reason for saying we should always have a bug for
anything that's reviewed...
J
___
webkit-dev ma
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:06 AM, David Levin wrote:
>
>>http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/81305
>> PS Dmitry found a flaw in my original change log text -- due to my haste,
>> I originally had put in the wrong valgrind error.
>>
> This
On Mar 28, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Darin Adler wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>
>> If the issue is simply one of overhead, then we should allow committers to
>> omit change logs when they're not necessary as well.
>
> Sure I am open to discussion about that. I think that
On Mar 28, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> If the issue is simply one of overhead, then we should allow committers to
> omit change logs when they're not necessary as well.
Sure I am open to discussion about that. I think that some check-ins,
especially LayoutTest ones, don’t need chan
On Mar 28, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Antonio Gomes wrote:
> Darin, could you explain your reasons?
I think the burden for supplying a reason goes in the other direction, on
people who want to require a bug for each check-in.
Generally speaking, I want to keep paperwork and overhead to a minimum. We
re
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:06 AM, David Levin wrote:
> Here's a change that I felt worth getting someone to glance at but didn't
> feel worth the overhead of a bug:
>http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/81305
>
> Since I was gardener and this was affecting the bots, it was a timely
> situation. (
Here's a change that I felt worth getting someone to glance at but didn't
feel worth the overhead of a bug:
http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/81305
Since I was gardener and this was affecting the bots, it was a timely
situation. (Sometimes getting in your fix right before another break comes
in
Darin, could you explain your reasons?
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Darin Adler wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2011, at 1:31 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>
> > I'd even go a bit further and say that if something is worth a review
> (even if it's over the shoulder), it's worth a bug + a bug number.
>
> This
Can you please explain why? Its very little overhead and is useful for
tracking regressions and such.
J
On Mar 28, 2011 9:52 AM, "Darin Adler" wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2011, at 1:31 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>
>> I'd even go a bit further and say that if something is worth a review
(even if it's over t
On Mar 27, 2011, at 1:31 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> I'd even go a bit further and say that if something is worth a review (even
> if it's over the shoulder), it's worth a bug + a bug number.
This is where I do not agree. Review is a requirement, but I don’t think
bugs.webkit.org should be.
Hi, all
I am developing wekit plugins. plugins has been almost developed but
got a wonder problem.
that loading is failed because NP_Shutdown is invoked right after NP_Initialise.
below is that call-trace
#0 0x4155a158 in WebCore::PluginPackage::unload() ()
from .lib/libwebkit-1.0.so.2
#1 0x4
17 matches
Mail list logo
