28669 2009-08-23 05:47:00 -0700 make-script-test-wrappers should be executable 2009-08-25 16:26:59 -0700 1 1 1 Unclassified WebKit Tools / Tests 528+ (Nightly build) PC All RESOLVED FIXED P2 Enhancement --- 1 heycam webkit-unassigned darin eric oldest_to_newest 142225 0 heycam 2009-08-23 05:47:00 -0700 WebKitTools/Scripts/make-script-test-wrappers should be executable, like nearly all other files in WebKitTools/Scripts/ are. update-sources-list.py probably should be executable too. 142227 1 heycam 2009-08-23 05:56:28 -0700 Ah, prepare-ChangeLog doesn't work if the only changes I've made are to properties: fox:~/svn/WebKit cam$ ./WebKitTools/Scripts/prepare-ChangeLog Running status to find changed, added, or removed files. M WebKitTools/Scripts/update-sources-list.py M WebKitTools/Scripts/make-script-test-wrappers No changes found. 142259 2 38461 heycam 2009-08-23 16:59:15 -0700 Created attachment 38461 Patch to make these two scripts executable I manually typed in the ChangeLog entry, since prepare-ChangeLog wasn't being cooperative. Hopefully I got the format right. 142270 3 darin 2009-08-23 22:14:18 -0700 (In reply to comment #1) > prepare-ChangeLog doesn't work if the only changes I've made are to > properties Right, it doesn't consider property changes as something it should list in the change log. 142271 4 heycam 2009-08-23 22:18:43 -0700 (In reply to comment #3) > Right, it doesn't consider property changes as something it should list in the > change log. Should it? It might make generating patches like this one easier if prepare-ChangeLog could be used. If so, I can file a bug and supply a patch for prepare-ChangeLog if you like. 142273 5 darin 2009-08-23 22:23:54 -0700 (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Right, it doesn't consider property changes as something it should list in the > > change log. > > Should it? It might make generating patches like this one easier if > prepare-ChangeLog could be used. If so, I can file a bug and supply a patch > for prepare-ChangeLog if you like. Sure, it would be OK. As with newly-added files we could consider pre-adding a comment to the generated file to say what the change is. For example, changing the state of the executable flag is one of the most common changes and it would be good to do it automatically. On the flip side, when changing flags on tons of files, having a list of the files with flags changed is probably not helpful in the way that listing files with contents changed is in typical patches. I have a slight fear that we'll have change log entries that are largely vacuous. Contributors don't seem to treat the change log as a communication tool as much as I'd like; those lists of files and functions are supposed to be for human consumption, and folks should read them and change anything that does not seem helpful. But yes, that would be a nice thing to fix. 142287 6 heycam 2009-08-24 00:38:47 -0700 (In reply to comment #5) > As with newly-added files we could consider pre-adding a comment to the > generated file to say what the change is. For example, changing the state of > the executable flag is one of the most common changes and it would be good to > do it automatically. > > On the flip side, when changing flags on tons of files, having a list of the > files with flags changed is probably not helpful in the way that listing files > with contents changed is in typical patches. I have a slight fear that we'll > have change log entries that are largely vacuous. Contributors don't seem to > treat the change log as a communication tool as much as I'd like; those lists > of files and functions are supposed to be for human consumption, and folks > should read them and change anything that does not seem helpful. > > But yes, that would be a nice thing to fix. Filed https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28675 for this. Agreed with the chance for creating large, useless ChangeLog entries, but hopefully contributors will use common sense and pare them down if necessary. 142344 7 38461 eric 2009-08-24 11:26:19 -0700 Comment on attachment 38461 Patch to make these two scripts executable Since the commit-queue is currently running from a git checkout, it won't be able to handle this. Someone will have to land this manually. 142727 8 eric 2009-08-25 16:26:59 -0700 r47764 38461 2009-08-23 16:59:15 -0700 2009-08-24 11:26:19 -0700 Patch to make these two scripts executable 28669.patch text/plain 1005 heycam SW5kZXg6IFdlYktpdFRvb2xzL0NoYW5nZUxvZwo9PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09Ci0tLSBXZWJLaXRUb29scy9D aGFuZ2VMb2cJKHJldmlzaW9uIDQ3Njk2KQorKysgV2ViS2l0VG9vbHMvQ2hhbmdlTG9nCSh3b3Jr aW5nIGNvcHkpCkBAIC0xLDMgKzEsMTYgQEAKKzIwMDktMDgtMjQgIENhbWVyb24gTWNDb3JtYWNr ICA8Y2FtQG1jYy5pZC5hdT4KKworICAgICAgICBSZXZpZXdlZCBieSBOT0JPRFkgKE9PUFMhKS4K KworICAgICAgICBtYWtlLXNjcmlwdC10ZXN0LXdyYXBwZXJzIHNob3VsZCBiZSBleGVjdXRhYmxl CisgICAgICAgIGh0dHBzOi8vYnVncy53ZWJraXQub3JnL3Nob3dfYnVnLmNnaT9pZD0yODY2OQor CisgICAgICAgIE1ha2UgbWFrZS1zY3JpcHQtdGVzdC13cmFwcGVycyBhbmQgdXBkYXRlLXNvdXJj ZXMtbGlzdC5weSBib3RoIGJlCisgICAgICAgIGV4ZWN1dGFibGUuCisKKyAgICAgICAgKiBTY3Jp cHRzL3VwZGF0ZS1zb3VyY2VzLWxpc3QucHk6CisgICAgICAgICogU2NyaXB0cy9tYWtlLXNjcmlw dC10ZXN0LXdyYXBwZXJzOgorCiAyMDA5LTA4LTIzICBKYW4gTWljaGFlbCBBbG9uem8gIDxqbWFs b256b0B3ZWJraXQub3JnPgogCiAgICAgICAgIFJldmlld2VkIGJ5IFhhbiBMb3Blei4KClByb3Bl cnR5IGNoYW5nZXMgb246IFdlYktpdFRvb2xzL1NjcmlwdHMvbWFrZS1zY3JpcHQtdGVzdC13cmFw cGVycwpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fCk5hbWU6IHN2bjpleGVjdXRhYmxlCiAgICsgKgoKClByb3BlcnR5IGNo YW5nZXMgb246IFdlYktpdFRvb2xzL1NjcmlwdHMvdXBkYXRlLXNvdXJjZXMtbGlzdC5weQpfX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fCk5hbWU6IHN2bjpleGVjdXRhYmxlCiAgICsgKgoK