Re: [webkit-dev] bugid in ChangeLog

2011-03-28 Thread Jeremy Orlow
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..

Re: [webkit-dev] bugid in ChangeLog

2011-03-28 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
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

Re: [webkit-dev] bugid in ChangeLog

2011-03-28 Thread David Levin
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

Re: [webkit-dev] bugid in ChangeLog

2011-03-28 Thread Jeremy Orlow
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

Re: [webkit-dev] bugid in ChangeLog

2011-03-28 Thread David Levin
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

Re: [webkit-dev] bugid in ChangeLog

2011-03-28 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
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

Re: [webkit-dev] bugid in ChangeLog

2011-03-28 Thread Darin Adler
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

Re: [webkit-dev] bugid in ChangeLog

2011-03-28 Thread Darin Adler
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

Re: [webkit-dev] bugid in ChangeLog

2011-03-28 Thread Jeremy Orlow
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. (

Re: [webkit-dev] bugid in ChangeLog

2011-03-28 Thread David Levin
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

Re: [webkit-dev] bugid in ChangeLog

2011-03-28 Thread Antonio Gomes
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

Re: [webkit-dev] bugid in ChangeLog

2011-03-28 Thread Jeremy Orlow
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

Re: [webkit-dev] bugid in ChangeLog

2011-03-28 Thread Darin Adler
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.

Re: [webkit-dev] bugid in ChangeLog

2011-03-27 Thread Jeremy Orlow
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Patrick Gansterer wrote: > > Am 26.03.2011 um 19:30 schrieb Brent Fulgham: > > I don't want to have a bug report for everything either, but I do agree > that my failure to include it in the changelog for the FontPlatformData > change was a stupid oversight. > > I'l

Re: [webkit-dev] bugid in ChangeLog

2011-03-26 Thread David Levin
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Patrick Gansterer wrote: > Hi, > > Sometimes folks commit changes without bug numbers. If those changes breaks > things it's hard to find the correct context for the change. > Can we make the bug number a requirement for a commit when it has a > corresponding bug?

Re: [webkit-dev] bugid in ChangeLog

2011-03-26 Thread Patrick Gansterer
Am 26.03.2011 um 19:30 schrieb Brent Fulgham: > I don't want to have a bug report for everything either, but I do agree that > my failure to include it in the changelog for the FontPlatformData change was > a stupid oversight. > > I'll make sure to avoid that mistake in the future! I didn't wa

Re: [webkit-dev] bugid in ChangeLog

2011-03-26 Thread Ryosuke Niwa
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Darin Adler wrote: > On Mar 26, 2011, at 3:24 AM, Patrick Gansterer wrote: > > > Sometimes folks commit changes without bug numbers. If those changes > breaks things it's hard to find the correct context for the change. > > Can we make the bug number a requiremen

Re: [webkit-dev] bugid in ChangeLog

2011-03-26 Thread Dirk Schulze
> If you use webkit-patch everything just magically works (yay!!) > > --Oliver > I agree! And if people would use it on uploading patches to a bug report, we wouldn't need a style-bot. Dirk ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org htt

Re: [webkit-dev] bugid in ChangeLog

2011-03-26 Thread Oliver Hunt
If you use webkit-patch everything just magically works (yay!!) --Oliver On Mar 26, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Brent Fulgham wrote: > > On Mar 26, 2011, at 10:41 AM, Darin Adler wrote: > >> On Mar 26, 2011, at 3:24 AM, Patrick Gansterer wrote: >> >>> Sometimes folks commit changes without bug numbers

Re: [webkit-dev] bugid in ChangeLog

2011-03-26 Thread Brent Fulgham
On Mar 26, 2011, at 10:41 AM, Darin Adler wrote: > On Mar 26, 2011, at 3:24 AM, Patrick Gansterer wrote: > >> Sometimes folks commit changes without bug numbers. If those changes breaks >> things it's hard to find the correct context for the change. >> Can we make the bug number a requirement f

Re: [webkit-dev] bugid in ChangeLog

2011-03-26 Thread Darin Adler
On Mar 26, 2011, at 3:24 AM, Patrick Gansterer wrote: > Sometimes folks commit changes without bug numbers. If those changes breaks > things it's hard to find the correct context for the change. > Can we make the bug number a requirement for a commit when it has a > corresponding bug? > IMHO it

[webkit-dev] bugid in ChangeLog

2011-03-26 Thread Patrick Gansterer
Hi, Sometimes folks commit changes without bug numbers. If those changes breaks things it's hard to find the correct context for the change. Can we make the bug number a requirement for a commit when it has a corresponding bug? IMHO it would be great if the style bot and the reviewer complain ab