Oops. I meant reply-to-all but just replied to Darin. 2009/3/6 Jungshik Shin (신정식, 申政湜) <js...@chromium.org>
> > > 2009/3/6 Darin Adler <da...@apple.com> > >> On Mar 6, 2009, at 8:36 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: >> >> Since I checked in the failing tests, I feel responsible, too. >>> >>> I'd say let's remove these tests and work to get the CSS2.1 suite >>> updated. WDYT? >>> >> >> I think it's an acceptable strategy to have these new separate tests. I >> just think someone needs to generate the correct expected results. >> >> Changing the CSS 2.1 suite itself would be OK, but I don't think it would >> have a big effect. We'd still need correct expected results. > > > Sorry for all the confusion. I mentioned the following on IRC and in the > bug, but perhaps, I was not clear enough. > > What happened was that test results are correct, but actual test files > (html files) that were svn-copied to a new location were NOT revised in the > new place. (my patch has new html files, but during the landing, svn-apply > did not work as intended and svn-copied files without actual changes went > int). > As a result, there's a mismatch between the expected result and what's > supposed to be new test files (that ARE actually just the copies of the > original tests). > > So, we can do any of the following (I'm also replying to Darin's question > here). > > 1. What Dave suggested on IRC. > > 1a. Revise the original CSS 2.1 tests in place and remove what's added > recently. > (this will be done by landing the latest patch in bug 23482) > > 1b. Same end result as 1a: > - roll out what's added recently right away without waiting for > Dave's r+. > - once Dave gives me a nod for in-place modification of the original > tests, make that change. > > 2. Leave the original tests alone and just update 'new' test html files in > fast/block/float to match expected results. > > If we do 1a/1b, I'm willing to talk to Ian once more about our changes and > talk him into revising CSS 2.1 suite the same way. I already asked him in > the bugzilla, but he may have missed it. > > #2 was what was agreed upon and what my second latest patch does, but > yesterday, Dave said that it's better to revise the original tests in place. > So, I made the latest patch (3rd patch in the bug) and asked him for > review. > > Jungshik > > > > > > >> >> >> I think the main question is who will generate expected results that are >> correct for Mac OS X. >> >> -- Darin >> >> >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
