Soup should use this abstraction.
Created attachment 186080 [details] Patch
Comment on attachment 186080 [details] Patch Attachment 186080 [details] did not pass chromium-ews (chromium-xvfb): Output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/16305884
Comment on attachment 186080 [details] Patch Attachment 186080 [details] did not pass qt-ews (qt): Output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/16295857
Comment on attachment 186080 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=186080&action=review Cool! > Source/WebCore/platform/network/soup/NetworkStorageSessionSoup.cpp:2 > + * Copyright (C) 2013 Apple Computer, Inc. All rights reserved. Did the Mac version say "Apple Computer"? The correct name is "Apple Inc." > Source/WebKit2/WebProcess/WebCoreSupport/soup/WebFrameNetworkingContext.h:33 > +using namespace WebCore; We normally don't put "using" into headers.
Comment on attachment 186080 [details] Patch Attachment 186080 [details] did not pass qt-wk2-ews (qt): Output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/16295856
Comment on attachment 186080 [details] Patch Attachment 186080 [details] did not pass cr-linux-debug-ews (chromium-xvfb): Output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/16305887
Comment on attachment 186080 [details] Patch Attachment 186080 [details] did not pass cr-android-ews (chromium-android): Output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/16309894
Created attachment 186258 [details] Fixing builds, incorporate review comments.
Comment on attachment 186258 [details] Fixing builds, incorporate review comments. Attachment 186258 [details] did not pass efl-ews (efl): Output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/16354502
Comment on attachment 186258 [details] Fixing builds, incorporate review comments. Did you forget to include NetworkStorageSessionSoup.cpp ?
Comment on attachment 186258 [details] Fixing builds, incorporate review comments. Attachment 186258 [details] did not pass win-ews (win): Output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/16356484
Comment on attachment 186258 [details] Fixing builds, incorporate review comments. Attachment 186258 [details] did not pass win-ews (win): Output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/16350527
Created attachment 186265 [details] Adding new file
Comment on attachment 186265 [details] Adding new file Attachment 186265 [details] did not pass win-ews (win): Output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/16360598
Comment on attachment 186265 [details] Adding new file Attachment 186265 [details] did not pass win-ews (win): Output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/16357581
(In reply to comment #15) > (From update of attachment 186265 [details]) > Attachment 186265 [details] did not pass win-ews (win): > Output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/16357581 Does not seem to be my fault: ImageDiffCG.cpp 1>..\cg\ImageDiffCG.cpp(37) : fatal error C1083: Cannot open include file: 'wtf/Platform.h': No such file or directory I guess this bot is plain broken.
Comment on attachment 186265 [details] Adding new file View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=186265&action=review > Source/WebCore/ChangeLog:6 > + Reviewed by Alexey Proskuryakov. Unsure why this is marked r?. Is there anything in particular you'd like me to have another look at?
(In reply to comment #17) > (From update of attachment 186265 [details]) > View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=186265&action=review > > > Source/WebCore/ChangeLog:6 > > + Reviewed by Alexey Proskuryakov. > > Unsure why this is marked r?. Is there anything in particular you'd like me to have another look at? Actually no, nothing important has changed, just I was needing the ews outputs. I was believing that setting r+ myself is not a acceptable behavior :)
Comment on attachment 186265 [details] Adding new file Clearing flags on attachment: 186265 Committed r141749: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/141749>
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.
> I was believing that setting r+ myself is not a acceptable behavior :) This is indeed not right. However a patch that already has reviewer name in ChangeLog does not need any review flag, commit-queue won't complain (and so won't people if you manually commit a reviewed patch with build fixes).