Maybe we need a webkit-port-maintainers@ list that one could easily cc rather than trying to add people by hand?
-- Dirk On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Patrick Gansterer <par...@paroga.com> wrote: > Hi, > I completely agree with all of your points. I also don't think that it's > your task to keep every "part time" port working with every change. > IMO most of the "is active" questions come with a "when do we remove the old > code/port from trunk" question. That's not very cool to hear after the > "hard" upstreaming work. But that's only my personal view. > More interesting questing is: How do "part time" maintainers get "informed" > about fundamental changes? I'd prefer cc'ing on a bug which might break a > build. So it's possible for the maintainer to try to build with the patch > locally and implement the missing parts. At least for me it's easier to fix > compiler errors than answering questions about a possible build break on > webkit-dev. ;-) > - Patrick > Am 14.09.2011 um 21:08 schrieb Geoffrey Garen: > > Hi Patrick. > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Patrick Gansterer <par...@paroga.com> > wrote: > > How do we measure an "active port"??? I maintain a buildbot for WinCe and > usually fix problems with the port within hours. Unfortunately I don't get > paid to work on WebKit the whole day and so I can't make such big steps > forward like other ports do. > > In my effort to establish the "threads exist" baseline abstraction, I've > gotten a few responses similar to this one: "I maintain port X, but I'm the > only one, and I have limited time…". > Here are my current thoughts, based on that experience: > * A long list of #ifdefs in core WebKit code makes reading and understanding > the code difficult, especially if the #ifdefs select among a matrix of > fundamentally different ways of doings things. > * A long tail of ports makes fundamental improvements to the engine > difficult and time consuming. Fundamental improvements are likely to break a > port, and port maintainers may not be available in a timely fashion to adopt > a fundamental improvement. (For example, it has been about a week since I > started the "threads exist" project.) > * We have a significant number of ports (maybe 5) that are either (a) > maintained by only one person working part-time or (b) not maintained at all > in WebKit trunk, but periodically upstreamed to WebKit trunk by downstream > clients to make their future merges easier. > * Single-part-time-maintainer ports seem to keep up at a reasonable pace > with simple build fixes like adding new files to projects, but not with > major architectural changes. > * Single-part-time-maintainer ports get very little, if any, testing outside > of automated regression tests, so it's hard to know if the code actually > works, who uses it, or what its requirements are. > When I ask if a port is "active", I guess what I mean is, "Can I go ahead > and make this core WebKit improvement, and assume that port maintainers will > keep up, or do I need to stop what I'm doing and wait for them, or worry > that they will roll out some or all of my patch instead of doing the harder > work of upgrading their port?" I also mean, "Is this port actively used, and > is the opportunity cost of upgrading it justified?" > I think the right solution here is for port maintainers, in cases of > nontrivial work, to take on the job of upgrading their ports to match core > engine changes, instead of core engineers taking on that job. And, in cases > where a port upgrade isn't available in a timely fashion for some reason, > WebKit should move forward and break the port (core builder or not). This > proposal might seem unkind, but I think it's the best thing for moving > WebKit forward in the long run. > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Patrick Gansterer <par...@paroga.com> > wrote: > > So PLEASE: When do we call a port "active"? It's not cool to get the > question about removal every few months! > > I hope that the plan I've outlined above will make "active" ports much more > well-known to core WebKit contributors, since port maintainers will be > working with core contributors to upgrade their ports. > Regards, > Geoff > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev > > _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev