Enable canvas_skia_skia.cc on Windows.

Enable canvas_skia_skia.cc on Windows.

BUG=105550
TEST=All UI text looks the same as before.

Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=120710

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2012-01-31 22:31:57]

Hey Scott,

I'd like to land this once I hear confirmation that we've branched.

[sky, 2012-01-31 23:32:36]

You should get Ben and Glen to do a build with this and make sure the text looks
good.

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2012-02-01 03:00:24]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:32 PM,  <sky@chromium.org> wrote:
> You should get Ben and Glen to do a build with this and make sure the text
> looks good.

I agree I should get their feedback. However, I think I could get
better turn-around time and waste less of their time if I land this to
get picked up by a Canary build and ask them to try the Canary, rather
than asking them to set this flag and make a build.

That way, I can also catch any regressions this causes sooner since we
can have all the canary users trying it out on the different
combinations of OS versions, language packs installed, etc - and find
any bugs earlier. Ideally, I'd like this to land to stick for M19,
which means the sooner I can get this in the wild - the sooner I know
about any regressions and the more time I'll have to fix them.

So I'd rather land this ASAP after the branch point and watch
crbug.com closely and be ready to revert if needed, then ask Glen and
Ben to spend time building with this flag and waiting for their turn
around time (probably at least a week) before I start receiving
feedback from actual users. What do you think?

(In terms of actual text rendering, Skia renders the glyphs
identically to ClearType - and in fact I believe we've now switched to
Skia for web content text - so there's no major surprises here in
general, though there may be regressions in edge cases of the UI that
I've not tested.)

-Alexei

[sky, 2012-02-03 15:46:43]

Makes sense, LGTM

[Alexei Svitkine (slow), 2012-02-03 16:18:05]

Thanks.

I'll wait to land this until after my performance improvement patches
have landed.

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 10:46 AM,  <sky@chromium.org> wrote:
> Makes sense, LGTM
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/9298015/

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-02-06 20:16:56]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/asvitkine@chromium.org/9298015/3001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-02-06 22:23:19]

Try job failure for 9298015-3001 (retry) on mac_rel for step "ui_tests".
It's a second try, previously, step "ui_tests" failed.
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=mac_rel&nu...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-02-06 22:27:23]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/asvitkine@chromium.org/9298015/3001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-02-07 00:33:55]

The commit queue went berserk retrying too often for a
seemingly flaky test. Builder is mac_rel, revision is 120630, job name
was 9298015-3001 (previous was lost) (previous was lost) (previous was lost)
(previous was lost).

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-02-07 00:47:51]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/asvitkine@chromium.org/9298015/3001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-02-07 04:28:24]

Change committed as 120710