True. But even if we disable the flags in stable builds, I'd still like to see some sort of warning UI.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:02 PM, John Abd-El-Malek <[email protected]>wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Jeremy Orlow <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Peter Kasting <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:38 PM, John Abd-El-Malek <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> We disable --single-process and --in-process-plugins on release Google >>>> Chrome builds to avoid the support headache that it causes. I think we >>>> should do the same for --no-sandbox. >>> >>> >>> There are legit reasons we have asked users to try temporarily disabling >>> the sandbox, more frequently than for those other flags. I'd prefer to just >>> make the UI turn ugly a la Jeremy's bug. >>> >> >> It might even make sense to re-enable --single-process and use the same UI >> technique to discourage it. >> > > --single-process is buggy and not well tested, and can cause deadlocks in > some scenarios. > > I think only developers should run without the sandbox, as those are the > ones who'd be able to understand the risks in doing so, and are the only > ones who need to test out features like webgl that aren't ready yet. So I > still think we should disable --no-sandbox in shipping Google Chrome builds, > and if someone needs it, they can use Chromium builds. > -- Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
