To mitigate this issue, Leandro (acidx) and I are working on change log parser that can automatically detect active patch contributors and reviewers. (See https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68061).
Having said that, I think contributors should help maintaining ports that have bots on build.webkit.org or EWS bots. - Ryosuke On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Geoffrey Garen <gga...@apple.com> wrote: > 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
