Add new runtime enabled features CSSPaintAPIArguments

Add new runtime enabled features CSSPaintAPIArguments

BUG=672647
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2550183006
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#442189}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/1352c4d7f1deb4196f3498cc76462c45cf325622

[renjieliu1, 2016-12-08 00:36:37]

Description was changed from

==========
Add new runtime enabled features CSSPaintAPIArugments

BUG=
==========

to

==========
Add new runtime enabled features CSSPaintAPIArugments

BUG=
==========

[renjieliu1, 2016-12-08 00:36:37]

renjieliu@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ ikilpatrick@chromium.org

[renjieliu1, 2016-12-08 00:45:57]

renjieliu@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ meade@chromium.org

[ikilpatrick, 2016-12-08 20:30:36]

lgtm, could you file and add a bug for this?

[renjieliu1, 2016-12-08 23:54:09]

Description was changed from

==========
Add new runtime enabled features CSSPaintAPIArugments

BUG=
==========

to

==========
Add new runtime enabled features CSSPaintAPIArugments

BUG=672647
==========

[renjieliu1, 2016-12-08 23:54:43]

On 2016/12/08 20:30:36, ikilpatrick wrote:
> lgtm, could you file and add a bug for this?

Sure thing, filed a bug here:
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=672647

[renjieliu1, 2016-12-09 03:33:24]

The CQ bit was checked by renjieliu@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-09 03:33:45]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-09 06:20:25]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-09 06:20:25]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[renjieliu1, 2016-12-09 10:05:42]

renjieliu@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ junov@chromium.org

[meade_UTC10, 2016-12-12 09:47:19]

Did you decide whether this new flag is needed, or whether it could be
controlled by CSSPaintAPI as well?

[renjieliu1, 2016-12-12 22:58:45]

On 2016/12/12 09:47:19, Eddy (OOO until 19 Dec) wrote:
> Did you decide whether this new flag is needed, or whether it could be
> controlled by CSSPaintAPI as well?

I think the discussion with Ian is we can add a new flag so if something goes
south, we can just turn that off and CSS Paint API with no arguments can still
work.

[ikilpatrick, 2016-12-12 23:12:51]

On 2016/12/12 22:58:45, renjieliu1 wrote:
> On 2016/12/12 09:47:19, Eddy (OOO until 19 Dec) wrote:
> > Did you decide whether this new flag is needed, or whether it could be
> > controlled by CSSPaintAPI as well?
> 
> I think the discussion with Ian is we can add a new flag so if something goes
> south, we can just turn that off and CSS Paint API with no arguments can still
> work.

^ +1.

[renjieliu1, 2016-12-19 00:14:19]

The CQ bit was checked by renjieliu@chromium.org

[renjieliu1, 2016-12-19 00:14:19]

The CQ bit was unchecked by renjieliu@chromium.org

[meade_UTC10, 2016-12-19 02:26:32]

lgtm

LGTM (+fixed a typo in your title)

[meade_UTC10, 2016-12-19 02:26:47]

Description was changed from

==========
Add new runtime enabled features CSSPaintAPIArugments

BUG=672647
==========

to

==========
Add new runtime enabled features CSSPaintAPIArguments

BUG=672647
==========

[renjieliu1, 2016-12-19 02:41:46]

On 2016/12/19 02:26:32, Eddy (OOO until 19 Dec) wrote:
> lgtm
> 
> LGTM (+fixed a typo in your title)

thank you! :)

[Justin Novosad, 2016-12-19 17:48:12]

This is dead code (adding a flag without adding code that uses it)

[ikilpatrick, 2016-12-19 21:51:56]

still lgtm

I'm in favour of landing smaller patches like this, there is a design doc linked
from the bug:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10yq_okp1-QJ2Qy5S8ZQhwxQcR4T4fgzqxx9FHwrII...

which explains all the steps, if we end up reverting we can just revert all the
changes associated with the bug.

we've been trying to get people to land smaller patches inside blink, which
means that we'll need to occasionally land dead code for things that aren't
worth testing, (like flags).

[renjieliu1, 2016-12-19 22:59:12]

On 2016/12/19 21:51:56, ikilpatrick wrote:
> still lgtm
> 
> I'm in favour of landing smaller patches like this, there is a design doc
linked
> from the bug:
>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10yq_okp1-QJ2Qy5S8ZQhwxQcR4T4fgzqxx9FHwrII...
> 
> which explains all the steps, if we end up reverting we can just revert all
the
> changes associated with the bug.
> 
> we've been trying to get people to land smaller patches inside blink, which
> means that we'll need to occasionally land dead code for things that aren't
> worth testing, (like flags).

Right. :)

[Justin Novosad, 2017-01-04 20:46:14]

Is this waiting for me?
lgtm

[renjieliu1, 2017-01-08 22:49:46]

The CQ bit was checked by renjieliu@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-08 22:49:57]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-09 01:31:09]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 1, "attempt_start_ts": 1483915786836010, "parent_rev":
"f2d674f16cbdc513213d62f85c5941789007fc4e", "commit_rev":
"1352c4d7f1deb4196f3498cc76462c45cf325622"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-09 01:31:35]

Description was changed from

==========
Add new runtime enabled features CSSPaintAPIArguments

BUG=672647
==========

to

==========
Add new runtime enabled features CSSPaintAPIArguments

BUG=672647

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2550183006
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#442189}
Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/1352c4d7f1deb4196f3498cc7646...
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-09 01:31:36]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1) as
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/1352c4d7f1deb4196f3498cc7646...