On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:42 PM, blake fiddler wrote:
> Hey!
>
> I have problem with WebKit Qt port build.
>
Please address Qt related questions to the webkit-qt mailing list in the
future.
> Why you disable Qt4.x ??? As I can understand now WebkitQt works only with
> 5.0 version?
>
You unde
Hey!
I have problem with WebKit Qt port build.
Why you disable Qt4.x ??? As I can understand now WebkitQt works only with
5.0 version?
But Qt5 isn't stable version - it's beta.
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Stephen Chenney
>> wrote:
>> > I agree with the priorities above, at least. I also agree with the
>> > overall
>> > goal of making our implementation
1. On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Stephen Chenney
> wrote:
> > I agree with the priorities above, at least. I also agree with the
> overall
> > goal of making our implementation match our philosophy on testing.
> >
> > Ryosuke has raised a
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Stephen Chenney wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>>> > Like Filip, I'm extremely concerned about the prospect of u
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>> > Like Filip, I'm extremely concerned about the prospect of us introducing
>> > yet-another-way-of-doing-things, and not be abl
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> > Like Filip, I'm extremely concerned about the prospect of us introducing
> > yet-another-way-of-doing-things, and not be able to get rid of it later.
>
> Presumably the only way we'd be
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>>
>> I think your observations are correct, but at least my experience as a
>> gardener/sheriff leads me to a different conclusion. Namely, when I'm
>> looking at a newly failing test, it i
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
> 1) Switching to skipping flaky tests wholesale in all ports would be
> great, and then we could get rid of the flakiness support.
>
Then you don't notice when a flaky tests stops being flaky. The cost of
flakiness support on the project does
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
>
> On Aug 16, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
> >>
> >> 2) Possibility of the sheriff getting it wrong.
> >>
> >> (2) concerns me most. We're talking about using filenames to serv
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> I think your observations are correct, but at least my experience as a
> gardener/sheriff leads me to a different conclusion. Namely, when I'm
> looking at a newly failing test, it is difficult if not impossible for
> me to know if the existin
On Aug 16, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
>>
>> 2) Possibility of the sheriff getting it wrong.
>>
>> (2) concerns me most. We're talking about using filenames to serve as a
>> kind of unchecked comment. We already know that comment
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
>
> 2) Possibility of the sheriff getting it wrong.
>
> (2) concerns me most. We're talking about using filenames to serve as a
> kind of unchecked comment. We already know that comments are usually bad
> because there is no protection against
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> I have a concern that a lot of people wouldn't know what the "correct"
> output is for a given test.
>
> For a lot of pixel tests, deciding whether a given output is correct or not
> is really hard. e.g. some seemingly insignificant anti-alias
Function is definitely useful in non-cross thread cases. It is analogous to
std::function, and its use cases are very similar. Please don't rename it.
-Sam
On Aug 15, 2012, at 7:35 PM, Kwonjin Jeong wrote:
> I also thought about what you said. But I'm not sure whether WTF::Function
> will b
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Bruno Abinader
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> > In that case, he might want to start with one port, get that working
>> > well, and then expand to the other ports.
>> >
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Bruno Abinader wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> > In that case, he might want to start with one port, get that working
> > well, and then expand to the other ports.
> >
> > Adam
>
> That's exactly what I am doing :) As I'm mostly fami
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> In that case, he might want to start with one port, get that working
> well, and then expand to the other ports.
>
> Adam
That's exactly what I am doing :) As I'm mostly familiar with Qt, it
is the chosen platform were I am basing layout test r
In that case, he might want to start with one port, get that working
well, and then expand to the other ports.
Adam
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Peter Beverloo wrote:
> It depends on the kind of feature you're working on, indeed.
>
> While I don't know what Bruno's use-case is, In the case
Depending on how much longer the feature will be in development, it may not
be worth setting up a new bot. Bruno seems to be mostly interested in
getting EWS results, whereas results on the waterfall would only show up
after committing the actual change.
Something you could consider is to have a p
It depends on the kind of feature you're working on, indeed.
While I don't know what Bruno's use-case is, In the case of text
decoration, I guess it could involve testing the complex test code paths
which can be different for port/platform combinations.
Peter
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Ada
Why not just build and run the tests locally? This sounds like a CSS
feature that should more or less work the same for every port.
Adam
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Peter Beverloo wrote:
> Depending on how much longer the feature will be in development, it may not
> be worth setting up a
Currently the EWS bots use the same configuration as the bots on
build.webkit.org. We do that so they give accurate information about
what effect a given patch is going to have on the state of the tree
when the patch lands. If we build using different flags on the EWS
than on build.webkit.org, th
Hi WebKit :)
As previously discussed, we decided that compile flag only was the
best option for CSS3 Text Decoration feature set (landed in
http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/125716 ). I believe this was a
general decision and got promptly implemented as such (however I still
maintain a runtime flag
Hi,
I don't think we should be rolling out patches that are 2-3 months old
without fully understanding the consequences of doing so even if they had
introduced a regression. I'd even argue that rolling out such an old patch
should require a formal review.
Best regards,
Ryosuke Niwa
Software Engin
25 matches
Mail list logo
