blimp/client/DEPS - Issue 1295243003: Initial commit of the blimp/ folder and target

Side by Side Diff

Use n/p to move between diff chunks; N/P to move between comments. Draft comments are only viewable by you.

Keyboard Shortcuts

	File
u :	up to issue
j / k :	jump to file after / before current file
J / K :	jump to next file with a comment after / before current file
	Side-by-side diff
i :	toggle intra-line diffs
e :	expand all comments
c :	collapse all comments
s :	toggle showing all comments
n / p :	next / previous diff chunk or comment
N / P :	next / previous comment
<Up> / <Down> :	next / previous line

	Issue
u :	up to list of issues
j / k :	jump to patch after / before current patch
o / <Enter> :	open current patch in side-by-side view
i :	open current patch in unified diff view

	Issue List
j / k :	jump to issue after / before current issue
o / <Enter> :	open current issue

Side by Side Diff: blimp/client/DEPS

Issue 1295243003: Initial commit of the blimp/ folder and target (Closed) Base URL: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git@master

Patch Set: Created 5 years, 4 months ago

Use n/p to move between diff chunks; N/P to move between comments. Draft comments are only viewable by you.

Jump to:

View unified diff | Download patch

OLD	NEW
(Empty)
	1 include_rules = [

	2 "+base",

	3 "+cc",

	4 "+content/public/common",
	nyquist 2015/08/19 07:48:06 Could we have "-content", "!content/public/common/ Could we have "-content", "!content/public/common/content_switches.h" instead? I think I would find it helpful if we instead clearly disallowed content with -content and then the temporary rule for the switches until we remove that dependency. Or do you think we will end up needing a lot of //content? David Trainor- moved to gerrit 2015/08/21 00:49:46 Good idea! Show quoted text On 2015/08/19 07:48:06, nyquist (OOO - back 8-24) wrote: > Could we have > "-content", > "!content/public/common/content_switches.h" instead? I think I would find it > helpful if we instead clearly disallowed content with -content and then the > temporary rule for the switches until we remove that dependency. > > Or do you think we will end up needing a lot of //content? Good idea! Wez 2015/08/27 02:01:50 Feels cleanest to disallow content & then allow sp Show quoted text On 2015/08/19 07:48:06, nyquist (OOO - back 8-24) wrote: > Could we have > "-content", > "!content/public/common/content_switches.h" instead? I think I would find it > helpful if we instead clearly disallowed content with -content and then the > temporary rule for the switches until we remove that dependency. > > Or do you think we will end up needing a lot of //content? Feels cleanest to disallow content & then allow specific bits that we have ugly deps on - my 2c. David Trainor- moved to gerrit 2015/09/03 06:33:20 Yeah agreed :) Show quoted text On 2015/08/27 02:01:50, Wez wrote: > On 2015/08/19 07:48:06, nyquist (OOO - back 8-24) wrote: > > Could we have > > "-content", > > "!content/public/common/content_switches.h" instead? I think I would find it > > helpful if we instead clearly disallowed content with -content and then the > > temporary rule for the switches until we remove that dependency. > > > > Or do you think we will end up needing a lot of //content? > > Feels cleanest to disallow content & then allow specific bits that we have ugly > deps on - my 2c. Yeah agreed :)
	5 "+gpu",

	6 "+jni",

	7 "+net",

	8 "+skia",

	9 "+third_party/skia",

	10 "+ui/gfx",

	11 "+ui/gl",

	12 ]

OLD	NEW

« blimp/blimp.gyp ('K') | « blimp/blimp.gyp ('k') | blimp/client/android/AndroidManifest.xml.jinja2 » ('j') | blimp/client/android/blimp_jni_registrar.h » ('J')