Bug 130887 - REGRESSION(r166376): This was a misguided optimization. (Requested by kling on #webkit).
Summary: REGRESSION(r166376): This was a misguided optimization. (Requested by kling o...
Alias: None
Product: WebKit
Classification: Unclassified
Component: New Bugs (show other bugs)
Version: 528+ (Nightly build)
Hardware: Unspecified Unspecified
: P2 Normal
Assignee: WebKit Commit Bot
Depends on:
Blocks: 130857
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2014-03-27 22:21 PDT by WebKit Commit Bot
Modified: 2014-03-28 06:59 PDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:

ROLLOUT of r166376 (3.99 KB, patch)
2014-03-27 22:22 PDT, WebKit Commit Bot
no flags Details | Formatted Diff | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description WebKit Commit Bot 2014-03-27 22:21:45 PDT
http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/166376 broke the build:
This was a misguided optimization. (Requested by kling on #webkit).

This is an automatic bug report generated by webkitbot. If this bug
report was created because of a flaky test, please file a bug for the flaky
test (if we don't already have one on file) and dup this bug against that bug
so that we can track how often these flaky tests fail.
Comment 1 WebKit Commit Bot 2014-03-27 22:22:06 PDT
Created attachment 228025 [details]
ROLLOUT of r166376

Any committer can land this patch automatically by marking it commit-queue+.  The commit-queue will build and test the patch before landing to ensure that the rollout will be successful.  This process takes approximately 15 minutes.

If you would like to land the rollout faster, you can use the following command:

  webkit-patch land-attachment ATTACHMENT_ID

where ATTACHMENT_ID is the ID of this attachment.
Comment 2 WebKit Commit Bot 2014-03-27 22:29:03 PDT
Comment on attachment 228025 [details]
ROLLOUT of r166376

Clearing flags on attachment: 228025

Committed r166397: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/166397>
Comment 3 WebKit Commit Bot 2014-03-27 22:29:06 PDT
All reviewed patches have been landed.  Closing bug.
Comment 4 Mark Hahnenberg 2014-03-28 06:59:35 PDT
Why? I thought at least the change from structure -> newStructure in the second part of the patch made the code more readable.