I think covering it partially with autotests is something we should aim for.
Adding the minimal build of webkit to the build bots, like we did lately, is a
good step in that direction and if we could gradually add some support for some
more of those configurations it would be great. I agree with Benjamin that it's
impossible to test all the exponential configurations and our customers
understand that - on the other hand I can say with confidence that enabling a
smaller QtWebkit is the biggest "wanted feature" for QtWebkit's customers.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected]
>[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
>Poulain Benjamin (Nokia-D-Qt/Oslo)
>Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 1:55 AM
>To: [email protected]; Suzuki Tasuku (Nokia-D-Qt/Tokyo)
>Subject: Re: [webkit-qt] QtWebKit with reduced feature set for
>embedded platforms
>
>Hausmann Simon (Nokia-D-Qt/Oslo) wrote:
>> Adding the feature #ifdefs adds a maintenance burden and
>clutters the
>> code. On the upside it makes it possible to use QtWebKit in
>much more
>> restricted environments, with limited functionality though.
>>
>> What do you guys think about this? Do you feel this is a
>useful thing
>> to have and maintain?
>
>Personally I like those feature. It allows some
>users/customers to use Qt on very restricted hardware.
>
>
>I think it is impossible to maintain those stuff if the configurations
>are not tested automatically.
>
>But if Tasuku maintains the kind of #ifdef he needs, why not?
>Especially
>if he is ok to maintains it long term.
>
>cheers,
>Benjamin
>_______________________________________________
>webkit-qt mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-qt
>
_______________________________________________
webkit-qt mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-qt
