On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Julien Chaffraix < julien.chaffr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Julien Chaffraix > > <julien.chaffr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > I don't think it's appropriate to add settings for CSS features that > are > >> > under development, > >> > for a number of reasons: > >> > > >> > * If we did this for every feature, we'd end up with hundreds of > >> > Settings. > >> > * Traditionally, Settings don't tend to get removed, resulting in an > >> > ever-accumulating number of Settings. > >> > >> ENABLE has a slightly better track of record but I don't think we > >> should push back on runtime flags just because of that. > > > > > > Having a runtime flag incurs runtime cost. > > Performance is one of our core goal and any WebKit hacker will agree > that it's important. Here you forgot to mention that we care about is > if it has a *notable* runtime cost in which case there is no proof > that the current flags incur such a cost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creeping_normalcy Given how many build flags we already have, I'm not excited about the prospect of having many runtime flags. Brushing aside one option based on FUD is not really something I am > supportive of though. > We have already had regressions like https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90367 due to runtime flags so this is not a theoretical concern. - Ryosuke
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
