On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:14 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > >>>>> If we don't support QT_NO_* officially and let the community fix > >>>>> problems, we have to disable CONFIG+=qt_minimal on this bot, > >>>>> because a core builder must be green almost at all times. > >>>>> > >>>> IMO that's sensible. Do we provide guidance for people who want to > >>>> maintain their own bots where they can test those configurations? > >>> > >>> I agree. Having a core builder that builds a minimal _WebKit_ build > >>> is something we should strive for, and enabling CONFIG+=qt_minimal > >>> makes that bot more fragile and less useful for other ports > >> > >> Seconded. The Qt Minimal bot should be minimal WebKit, and that's > >> already on the edge of what we can reasonably expect non-Qt WebKit > >> contributors to care about. I'm fine with keeping the QT_NO_* stuff in > >> place if it's explicitly unsupported and doesn't grow into anything > >> beyond disabled code blocks here and there. > > > >Second on this, too. > >If we keep the QT_NO* guards in tree we have to document somewhere that > this is not officially supported. The minimal bot is otherwise an important > one since it is the only one testing the correctness of at least a default > set of the >gadzillion WebKit guards. > > I would challenge this. I think the problem is that it is a really low bar > to introduce a new build flag for trunk. We should keep the bar high for not > only new "WebKit flags" but also for "Qt flags" on the trunk. Allowing a > flag without a bot is allowing code without auto test. I do not think that > having flags that almost build is any good. > > I would keep the minimal bot configuration as it is or create a new bot for > CONFIG+=qt_minimal and enforce that every "Qt flags" is also being tested > (so that at least it builds all the way). > > I also agree with Andreas that most QT_NO_* defines should go from WebKit > trunk. We should start a review process and go trough each and every one of > them one-by-one. *We should consider that some flags might be removed from > Qt5 anyway.* >
This is the reason I segued into Qt5 earlier. > > Laszlo > _______________________________________________ > webkit-qt mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-qt > -- ................................................................ *Sencha* Jarred Nicholls, Senior Software Architect @jarrednicholls <http://twitter.com/jarrednicholls>
_______________________________________________ webkit-qt mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-qt
