Idea: Create list of sources in each sub-directory of content/

[Darin Fisher]

I've seen quite a number of CLs like this:

https://codereview.chromium.org/16581002/

Here, the guys working on IndexedDB were expected to wait for a top-level content/ OWNER to approve a trivial GYPI change corresponding to a reshuffling of files in the content/browser/indexed_db/ directory. What value does this extra approval add? None, IMO.

It seems like if you have the power to approve changes to the contents of source files in a directory, then you should also have the power to rename those files, split up those files, merge those files into one, etc. The cost of requiring a top-level ONWERs approval for such changes is just pure friction.

Here's a possible solution:

In each sub-directory of content/, let's create a sources.gypi file that declares the list of source files contained in that directory.

WDYT?

-Darin

[Paweł Hajdan, Jr.]

I would just TBR .gypi changes on file moves (unless I was aware of some special considerations, e.g. content public API being involved). Alternatively, I'd ping one of the OWNERS on IM, and ask for a quick review of a trivial change.

I think it's important to find a good balance between the OWNERS system (which is helpful) and keeping the gyp files simple (which is arguably easier when there are less separate .gypi files).

Paweł

[John Abd-El-Malek]

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Darin Fisher <da...@chromium.org> wrote:

This sounds good to me. I have a preference if the the gypi's in subdirs are just a list of source files only. i.e. any other logic, dependencies etc are in the top level one. The reason is that because of some quirk in gyp, source paths in a gypi are relative to the containing gyp, but other paths like dependencies etc are relative to the gypi, so that creates confusion.

-Darin

[Darin Fisher]

I used to feel the way you do.  But, I've come around.  I think people hesitate to use the TBR hammer, and if we can just eliminate the friction in the first place, then that would be better.

I also think it would make it easier to maintain source lists if the source lists were directly adjacent to the source files.  That way, it would be super obvious where you should go to add / remove / rename source files.

It might be nice to apply a consistent policy across the entire source tree.

Anyways, I think this is the kind of change that we shouldn't make on a whim... think about it :-)

-Darin