Chromium Code Reviews
|
|
Chromium Code Reviews
Issue
1849613003:
add support for custom_vars in recursive dependencies (Closed)
|
Created:
4 years, 8 months ago by rwalker Modified:
4 years, 8 months ago CC:
chromium-reviews, dpranke+depot_tools_chromium.org, iannucci+depot_tools_chromium.org Base URL:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/tools/depot_tools.git@master Target Ref:
refs/heads/master Project:
depot_tools Visibility:
Public. |
Descriptionadd support for custom_vars in recursive dependencies
R=dpranke@chromium.org
Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=299595
Patch Set 1 #Patch Set 2 : removed change-id from commit message #
Messages
Total messages: 22 (5 generated)
thanks for the help with this
dpranke@chromium.org changed reviewers: + agable@chromium.org
lgtm, at least in theory. agable@, what do you think? However, we also need you to sign the Google CLA before we can accept this patch, unfortunately: https://cla.developers.google.com/clas
On 2016/03/30 22:56:29, Dirk Pranke wrote: > lgtm, at least in theory. agable@, what do you think? > > However, we also need you to sign the Google CLA before we can accept this > patch, unfortunately: > > https://cla.developers.google.com/clas I am covered under a corporate contributors agreement as a member of Code Aurora Forum
On 2016/03/30 22:58:35, rwalker wrote: > On 2016/03/30 22:56:29, Dirk Pranke wrote: > > lgtm, at least in theory. agable@, what do you think? > > > > However, we also need you to sign the Google CLA before we can accept this > > patch, unfortunately: > > > > https://cla.developers.google.com/clas > > I am covered under a corporate contributors agreement as a member of Code Aurora > Forum https://codereview.chromium.org/16077010/ has information about how to find the CLA I should be covered under... "the corporate tab" in comment #9
On 2016/03/30 23:11:03, rwalker wrote: > > I am covered under a corporate contributors agreement as a member of Code > Aurora > > Forum Hmm. Yeah, I thought that *@codeaurora.org should've been covered, but I'm not actually seeing anything in the list of corporate signers in the current system (the spreadsheet is no more). Is there another business name you might be listed under? Failing that, I can ping some people internally to see what's up.
On 2016/03/30 23:34:12, Dirk Pranke wrote: > On 2016/03/30 23:11:03, rwalker wrote: > > > I am covered under a corporate contributors agreement as a member of Code > > Aurora > > > Forum > > Hmm. Yeah, I thought that mailto:*@codeaurora.org should've been covered, but I'm not > actually seeing anything in the list of corporate signers in the current system > (the spreadsheet is no more). Is there another business name you might > be listed under? Failing that, I can ping some people internally to see what's > up. I'm also covered as an individual as rwalker@rwalker.com, but I'd prefer to get the CAF/codeaurora.org thing straight since my team is ramping up our upstream engagement and we'll all be *@codeaurora.org.
On 2016/03/30 23:45:30, rwalker wrote: > On 2016/03/30 23:34:12, Dirk Pranke wrote: > > On 2016/03/30 23:11:03, rwalker wrote: > > > > I am covered under a corporate contributors agreement as a member of Code > > > Aurora > > > > Forum > > > > Hmm. Yeah, I thought that mailto:*@codeaurora.org should've been covered, but > I'm not > > actually seeing anything in the list of corporate signers in the current > system > > (the spreadsheet is no more). Is there another business name you might > > be listed under? Failing that, I can ping some people internally to see what's > > up. > I'm also covered as an individual as mailto:rwalker@rwalker.com, but I'd prefer to get > the http://CAF/codeaurora.org thing straight since my team is ramping up our upstream > engagement and we'll all be mailto:*@codeaurora.org. Sure. I will check.
On 2016/03/30 23:46:20, Dirk Pranke wrote: > On 2016/03/30 23:45:30, rwalker wrote: > > On 2016/03/30 23:34:12, Dirk Pranke wrote: > > > On 2016/03/30 23:11:03, rwalker wrote: > > > > > I am covered under a corporate contributors agreement as a member of > Code > > > > Aurora > > > > > Forum > > > > > > Hmm. Yeah, I thought that mailto:*@codeaurora.org should've been covered, > but > > I'm not > > > actually seeing anything in the list of corporate signers in the current > > system > > > (the spreadsheet is no more). Is there another business name you might > > > be listed under? Failing that, I can ping some people internally to see > what's > > > up. > > I'm also covered as an individual as mailto:rwalker@rwalker.com, but I'd > prefer to get > > the http://CAF/codeaurora.org thing straight since my team is ramping up our > upstream > > engagement and we'll all be mailto:*@codeaurora.org. > > Sure. I will check. greatly appreciated!
LGTM. (Note that, on Rietveld, you don't need the Change-Id line in the cl description.)
On 2016/03/31 16:05:19, agable wrote: > LGTM. > > (Note that, on Rietveld, you don't need the Change-Id line in the cl > description.) I'll remove it
Description was changed from ========== add support for custom_vars in recursive dependencies R=dpranke@chromium.org Change-Id: I46aca115f3220286a4852470521b474ffdb705f7 BUG= ========== to ========== add support for custom_vars in recursive dependencies R=dpranke@chromium.org ==========
On 2016/03/31 18:36:43, rwalker wrote: > On 2016/03/31 16:05:19, agable wrote: > > LGTM. > > > > (Note that, on Rietveld, you don't need the Change-Id line in the cl > > description.) > > I'll remove it ug, Description doesn't come from the commit :)
The CQ bit was checked by rwalker@codeaurora.org
The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from dpranke@chromium.org, agable@chromium.org Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1849613003/#ps20001 (title: "removed change-id from commit message")
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1849613003/20001 View timeline at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1849613003/20001
On 2016/03/31 at 19:15:08, rwalker wrote: > On 2016/03/31 18:36:43, rwalker wrote: > > On 2016/03/31 16:05:19, agable wrote: > > > LGTM. > > > > > > (Note that, on Rietveld, you don't need the Change-Id line in the cl > > > description.) > > > > I'll remove it > > ug, Description doesn't come from the commit :) Heh, yeah, sorry. It comes from the commit message when you first upload a CL, but from then on remains static no matter how many patchsets you upload. Looks like you found how to edit it, though.
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Description was changed from ========== add support for custom_vars in recursive dependencies R=dpranke@chromium.org ========== to ========== add support for custom_vars in recursive dependencies R=dpranke@chromium.org Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=299595 ==========
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Committed patchset #2 (id:20001) as http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=299595
Message was sent while issue was closed.
On 2016/03/31 19:18:46, commit-bot: I haz the power wrote: > Committed patchset #2 (id:20001) as > http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=299595 Hrm :( This shouldn't have been committed before I could report back on the CLA thing, but this is probably safe ...
Message was sent while issue was closed.
On 2016/03/31 19:25:57, Dirk Pranke wrote: > On 2016/03/31 19:18:46, commit-bot: I haz the power wrote: > > Committed patchset #2 (id:20001) as > > http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=299595 > > Hrm :( This shouldn't have been committed before I could report back on the CLA > thing, but this is probably safe ... Whoops! My bad. I'll be sure and hold anything else until we're clear on CLA. CAF is a subsidiary of the Linux Foundation. Maybe you'll find us listed under that?
Message was sent while issue was closed.
On 2016/03/31 19:31:43, rwalker wrote: > > Hrm :( This shouldn't have been committed before I could report back on the > CLA > > thing, but this is probably safe ... > > Whoops! My bad. I'll be sure and hold anything else until we're clear on CLA. > > CAF is a subsidiary of the Linux Foundation. Maybe you'll find us listed under > that? Nope, I didn't see a listing for that, either. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
