Chromium Code Reviews
|
|
Chromium Code Reviews
Issue
887123004:
Revert of Roll src/third_party/WebKit 465217f:d693046 (svn 189778:189793) (Closed)
DescriptionRevert of Roll src/third_party/WebKit 465217f:d693046 (svn 189778:189793) (patchset #1 id:1 of https://codereview.chromium.org/912483003/)
Reason for revert:
Suspected to cause a huge number of tests failing:
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.linux/builders/Linux%20Tests%20%28dbg%29%281%29%2832%29/builds/9538
Original issue's description:
> Roll src/third_party/WebKit 465217f:d693046 (svn 189778:189793)
>
> Summary of changes available at:
> https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink/+log/465217f..d693046
>
> TBR=dpranke@chromium.org,caseq@chromium.org
>
> Committed: https://crrev.com/3a40a6413424402ac41db8184a398ec46934c206
> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#315299}
TBR=caseq@chromium.org,dpranke@chromium.org,blink-deps-roller@chromium.org
NOPRESUBMIT=true
NOTREECHECKS=true
NOTRY=true
Patch Set 1 #Messages
Total messages: 25 (6 generated)
Created Revert of Roll src/third_party/WebKit 465217f:d693046 (svn 189778:189793)
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/887123004/1
The CQ bit was unchecked by dpranke@chromium.org
On 2015/02/09 19:47:46, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote: > CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at > https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/887123004/1 I think rch already reverted this ...
dpranke@chromium.org changed reviewers: + rch@chromium.org
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
On 2015/02/09 19:48:05, Dirk Pranke wrote: > On 2015/02/09 19:47:46, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote: > > CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at > > https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/887123004/1 > > I think rch already reverted this ... okay, I guess his patch failed to apply. I bet this will too; we might need to revert by hand.
The CQ bit was checked by dpranke@chromium.org
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/887123004/1
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Failed to apply the patch.
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
On 2015/02/09 19:49:06, Dirk Pranke wrote: > On 2015/02/09 19:48:05, Dirk Pranke wrote: > > On 2015/02/09 19:47:46, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote: > > > CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at > > > https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/887123004/1 > > > > I think rch already reverted this ... > > okay, I guess his patch failed to apply. I bet this will too; we might need to > revert by hand. Eh, Dirk, Could you manually revert it?
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:51 AM, <jiayl@chromium.org> wrote: > On 2015/02/09 19:49:06, Dirk Pranke wrote: > >> On 2015/02/09 19:48:05, Dirk Pranke wrote: >> > On 2015/02/09 19:47:46, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote: >> > > CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at >> > > https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/887123004/1 >> > >> > I think rch already reverted this ... >> > > okay, I guess his patch failed to apply. I bet this will too; we might >> need to >> revert by hand. >> > > Eh, Dirk, > Could you manually revert it? > Working on that now. I've just started looking at this, but this is a bit puzzling, since the Linux Tests (dbg) bot on the chromium.webkit waterfall has been fine w/ these changes. -- Dirk To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
Looks like this was reverted by caseq@ 100 minutes ago: https://codereview.chromium.org/907953002 -- Dirk On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:51 AM, <jiayl@chromium.org> wrote: > >> On 2015/02/09 19:49:06, Dirk Pranke wrote: >> >>> On 2015/02/09 19:48:05, Dirk Pranke wrote: >>> > On 2015/02/09 19:47:46, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote: >>> > > CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at >>> > > https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/887123004/1 >>> > >>> > I think rch already reverted this ... >>> >> >> okay, I guess his patch failed to apply. I bet this will too; we might >>> need to >>> revert by hand. >>> >> >> Eh, Dirk, >> Could you manually revert it? >> > > Working on that now. I've just started looking at this, but this is a bit > puzzling, since the Linux Tests (dbg) bot on the chromium.webkit waterfall > has been fine w/ these changes. > > -- Dirk > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
Ah, I see, the failures are only on the 32-bit bot. On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> wrote: > Looks like this was reverted by caseq@ 100 minutes ago: > > https://codereview.chromium.org/907953002 > > -- Dirk > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:51 AM, <jiayl@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> On 2015/02/09 19:49:06, Dirk Pranke wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015/02/09 19:48:05, Dirk Pranke wrote: >>>> > On 2015/02/09 19:47:46, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote: >>>> > > CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at >>>> > > https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/887123004/1 >>>> > >>>> > I think rch already reverted this ... >>>> >>> >>> okay, I guess his patch failed to apply. I bet this will too; we might >>>> need to >>>> revert by hand. >>>> >>> >>> Eh, Dirk, >>> Could you manually revert it? >>> >> >> Working on that now. I've just started looking at this, but this is a bit >> puzzling, since the Linux Tests (dbg) bot on the chromium.webkit waterfall >> has been fine w/ these changes. >> >> -- Dirk >> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
Yes, I pingd caseq to revert manually after the CQ revert failed. On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> wrote: > Looks like this was reverted by caseq@ 100 minutes ago: > > https://codereview.chromium.org/907953002 > > -- Dirk > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:51 AM, <jiayl@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> On 2015/02/09 19:49:06, Dirk Pranke wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015/02/09 19:48:05, Dirk Pranke wrote: >>>> > On 2015/02/09 19:47:46, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote: >>>> > > CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at >>>> > > https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/887123004/1 >>>> > >>>> > I think rch already reverted this ... >>>> >>> >>> okay, I guess his patch failed to apply. I bet this will too; we might >>>> need to >>>> revert by hand. >>>> >>> >>> Eh, Dirk, >>> Could you manually revert it? >>> >> >> Working on that now. I've just started looking at this, but this is a bit >> puzzling, since the Linux Tests (dbg) bot on the chromium.webkit waterfall >> has been fine w/ these changes. >> >> -- Dirk >> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
OK, it should be picked up in the next run. On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Ryan Hamilton <rch@chromium.org> wrote: > Yes, I pingd caseq to revert manually after the CQ revert failed. > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Looks like this was reverted by caseq@ 100 minutes ago: >> >> https://codereview.chromium.org/907953002 >> >> -- Dirk >> >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:51 AM, <jiayl@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015/02/09 19:49:06, Dirk Pranke wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2015/02/09 19:48:05, Dirk Pranke wrote: >>>>> > On 2015/02/09 19:47:46, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote: >>>>> > > CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at >>>>> > > https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/887123004/1 >>>>> > >>>>> > I think rch already reverted this ... >>>>> >>>> >>>> okay, I guess his patch failed to apply. I bet this will too; we might >>>>> need to >>>>> revert by hand. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Eh, Dirk, >>>> Could you manually revert it? >>>> >>> >>> Working on that now. I've just started looking at this, but this is a >>> bit puzzling, since the Linux Tests (dbg) bot on the chromium.webkit >>> waterfall has been fine w/ these changes. >>> >>> -- Dirk >>> >>> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
I suspect that https://codereview.chromium.org/840223002 is the cause. I'm going to revert that change and try another roll, unless someone objects ... -- Dirk On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Jiayang Liu <jiayl@chromium.org> wrote: > OK, it should be picked up in the next run. > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Ryan Hamilton <rch@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Yes, I pingd caseq to revert manually after the CQ revert failed. >> >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Looks like this was reverted by caseq@ 100 minutes ago: >>> >>> https://codereview.chromium.org/907953002 >>> >>> -- Dirk >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:51 AM, <jiayl@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2015/02/09 19:49:06, Dirk Pranke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2015/02/09 19:48:05, Dirk Pranke wrote: >>>>>> > On 2015/02/09 19:47:46, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote: >>>>>> > > CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at >>>>>> > > https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/887123004/1 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I think rch already reverted this ... >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> okay, I guess his patch failed to apply. I bet this will too; we >>>>>> might need to >>>>>> revert by hand. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Eh, Dirk, >>>>> Could you manually revert it? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Working on that now. I've just started looking at this, but this is a >>>> bit puzzling, since the Linux Tests (dbg) bot on the chromium.webkit >>>> waterfall has been fine w/ these changes. >>>> >>>> -- Dirk >>>> >>>> >>> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
Agreed. That was the plan caseq was going to implement. Can we wait to re-roll until this bot builds with the reverted roll? On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> wrote: > I suspect that https://codereview.chromium.org/840223002 is the cause. > I'm going to revert that change and try another roll, unless someone > objects ... > > -- Dirk > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Jiayang Liu <jiayl@chromium.org> wrote: > >> OK, it should be picked up in the next run. >> >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Ryan Hamilton <rch@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> Yes, I pingd caseq to revert manually after the CQ revert failed. >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Looks like this was reverted by caseq@ 100 minutes ago: >>>> >>>> https://codereview.chromium.org/907953002 >>>> >>>> -- Dirk >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:51 AM, <jiayl@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2015/02/09 19:49:06, Dirk Pranke wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2015/02/09 19:48:05, Dirk Pranke wrote: >>>>>>> > On 2015/02/09 19:47:46, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote: >>>>>>> > > CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at >>>>>>> > > https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/887123004/1 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > I think rch already reverted this ... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> okay, I guess his patch failed to apply. I bet this will too; we >>>>>>> might need to >>>>>>> revert by hand. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Eh, Dirk, >>>>>> Could you manually revert it? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Working on that now. I've just started looking at this, but this is a >>>>> bit puzzling, since the Linux Tests (dbg) bot on the chromium.webkit >>>>> waterfall has been fine w/ these changes. >>>>> >>>>> -- Dirk >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
So, the new Linux (dbg)(32) build is running now, so I expect it will complete relatively soon and we'll know, but, sure, we can wait. -- Dirk caseq@ already reverted the upstream change, and posted a new roll. That roll included a On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Ryan Hamilton <rch@chromium.org> wrote: > Agreed. That was the plan caseq was going to implement. Can we wait to > re-roll until this bot builds with the reverted roll? > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> wrote: > >> I suspect that https://codereview.chromium.org/840223002 is the cause. >> I'm going to revert that change and try another roll, unless someone >> objects ... >> >> -- Dirk >> >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Jiayang Liu <jiayl@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> OK, it should be picked up in the next run. >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Ryan Hamilton <rch@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, I pingd caseq to revert manually after the CQ revert failed. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Looks like this was reverted by caseq@ 100 minutes ago: >>>>> >>>>> https://codereview.chromium.org/907953002 >>>>> >>>>> -- Dirk >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:51 AM, <jiayl@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2015/02/09 19:49:06, Dirk Pranke wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2015/02/09 19:48:05, Dirk Pranke wrote: >>>>>>>> > On 2015/02/09 19:47:46, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote: >>>>>>>> > > CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at >>>>>>>> > > https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/ >>>>>>>> 887123004/1 >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > I think rch already reverted this ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> okay, I guess his patch failed to apply. I bet this will too; we >>>>>>>> might need to >>>>>>>> revert by hand. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Eh, Dirk, >>>>>>> Could you manually revert it? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Working on that now. I've just started looking at this, but this is a >>>>>> bit puzzling, since the Linux Tests (dbg) bot on the chromium.webkit >>>>>> waterfall has been fine w/ these changes. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Dirk >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
argh, hit return too soon (juggling too many message threads). The new roll -- https://codereview.chromium.org/909983002/ -- includes a build of linux_chromium_compile_dbg_32_ng that is green, so hopefully that's also a good sign. -- Dirk On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> wrote: > So, the new Linux (dbg)(32) build is running now, so I expect it will > complete relatively soon and we'll know, but, sure, we can wait. > > -- Dirk > > caseq@ already reverted the upstream change, and posted a new roll. That > roll included a > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Ryan Hamilton <rch@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Agreed. That was the plan caseq was going to implement. Can we wait to >> re-roll until this bot builds with the reverted roll? >> >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >>> I suspect that https://codereview.chromium.org/840223002 is the cause. >>> I'm going to revert that change and try another roll, unless someone >>> objects ... >>> >>> -- Dirk >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Jiayang Liu <jiayl@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>>> OK, it should be picked up in the next run. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Ryan Hamilton <rch@chromium.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes, I pingd caseq to revert manually after the CQ revert failed. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Looks like this was reverted by caseq@ 100 minutes ago: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://codereview.chromium.org/907953002 >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Dirk >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:51 AM, <jiayl@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2015/02/09 19:49:06, Dirk Pranke wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2015/02/09 19:48:05, Dirk Pranke wrote: >>>>>>>>> > On 2015/02/09 19:47:46, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote: >>>>>>>>> > > CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at >>>>>>>>> > > https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/ >>>>>>>>> 887123004/1 >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > I think rch already reverted this ... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> okay, I guess his patch failed to apply. I bet this will too; we >>>>>>>>> might need to >>>>>>>>> revert by hand. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Eh, Dirk, >>>>>>>> Could you manually revert it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Working on that now. I've just started looking at this, but this is >>>>>>> a bit puzzling, since the Linux Tests (dbg) bot on the chromium.webkit >>>>>>> waterfall has been fine w/ these changes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Dirk >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
Great! On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> wrote: > argh, hit return too soon (juggling too many message threads). > > The new roll -- https://codereview.chromium.org/909983002/ -- includes a > build of linux_chromium_compile_dbg_32_ng that is green, so hopefully > that's also a good sign. > > -- Dirk > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> wrote: > >> So, the new Linux (dbg)(32) build is running now, so I expect it will >> complete relatively soon and we'll know, but, sure, we can wait. >> >> -- Dirk >> >> caseq@ already reverted the upstream change, and posted a new roll. That >> roll included a >> >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Ryan Hamilton <rch@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> Agreed. That was the plan caseq was going to implement. Can we wait to >>> re-roll until this bot builds with the reverted roll? >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I suspect that https://codereview.chromium.org/840223002 is the cause. >>>> I'm going to revert that change and try another roll, unless someone >>>> objects ... >>>> >>>> -- Dirk >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Jiayang Liu <jiayl@chromium.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> OK, it should be picked up in the next run. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Ryan Hamilton <rch@chromium.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I pingd caseq to revert manually after the CQ revert failed. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Looks like this was reverted by caseq@ 100 minutes ago: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://codereview.chromium.org/907953002 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Dirk >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:51 AM, <jiayl@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2015/02/09 19:49:06, Dirk Pranke wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2015/02/09 19:48:05, Dirk Pranke wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > On 2015/02/09 19:47:46, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > > CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at >>>>>>>>>> > > https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/ >>>>>>>>>> 887123004/1 >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > I think rch already reverted this ... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> okay, I guess his patch failed to apply. I bet this will too; we >>>>>>>>>> might need to >>>>>>>>>> revert by hand. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Eh, Dirk, >>>>>>>>> Could you manually revert it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Working on that now. I've just started looking at this, but this is >>>>>>>> a bit puzzling, since the Linux Tests (dbg) bot on the chromium.webkit >>>>>>>> waterfall has been fine w/ these changes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- Dirk >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
... and the Linux 32 (dbg) bot cycled green: http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.linux/builders/Linux%20Tests%20%28dbg%29... I'll restart the roll in the CQ. -- Dirk On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Ryan Hamilton <rch@chromium.org> wrote: > Great! > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> wrote: > >> argh, hit return too soon (juggling too many message threads). >> >> The new roll -- https://codereview.chromium.org/909983002/ -- includes a >> build of linux_chromium_compile_dbg_32_ng that is green, so hopefully >> that's also a good sign. >> >> -- Dirk >> >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >>> So, the new Linux (dbg)(32) build is running now, so I expect it will >>> complete relatively soon and we'll know, but, sure, we can wait. >>> >>> -- Dirk >>> >>> caseq@ already reverted the upstream change, and posted a new roll. >>> That roll included a >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Ryan Hamilton <rch@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Agreed. That was the plan caseq was going to implement. Can we wait to >>>> re-roll until this bot builds with the reverted roll? >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I suspect that https://codereview.chromium.org/840223002 is the >>>>> cause. I'm going to revert that change and try another roll, unless someone >>>>> objects ... >>>>> >>>>> -- Dirk >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Jiayang Liu <jiayl@chromium.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> OK, it should be picked up in the next run. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Ryan Hamilton <rch@chromium.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, I pingd caseq to revert manually after the CQ revert failed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Looks like this was reverted by caseq@ 100 minutes ago: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://codereview.chromium.org/907953002 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- Dirk >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:51 AM, <jiayl@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2015/02/09 19:49:06, Dirk Pranke wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2015/02/09 19:48:05, Dirk Pranke wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> > On 2015/02/09 19:47:46, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> > > CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at >>>>>>>>>>> > > https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/ >>>>>>>>>>> 887123004/1 >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > I think rch already reverted this ... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> okay, I guess his patch failed to apply. I bet this will too; we >>>>>>>>>>> might need to >>>>>>>>>>> revert by hand. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Eh, Dirk, >>>>>>>>>> Could you manually revert it? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Working on that now. I've just started looking at this, but this >>>>>>>>> is a bit puzzling, since the Linux Tests (dbg) bot on the chromium.webkit >>>>>>>>> waterfall has been fine w/ these changes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- Dirk >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
\o/ To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org. |
