Hi Wanming, I'll put you in touch with our release managers so that they're aware of this happening.
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 5:38 PM Chris Harrelson <chris...@chromium.org> wrote: > Sounds good to me. > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 7:07 PM Wanming Lin <wanming....@intel.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> The CL >> <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3115849> has >> been relanded and following's the new original plan: >> >> - Land the change to M95 - Done >> - Allow the change to reach M95 beta (promoted Sep 23) >> - Revert it on the M95 branch well before the stable cut/release (Cut >> Oct 12) >> - Get back to this thread with test reports on M95 beta >> >> Does that sound good to you? Looks like Philip is still on vacation, >> could someone help notice the release managers about this plan? Or just >> help me reach out the release managers. Many thanks! >> >> Thanks, >> Wanming >> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 3:13:06 AM UTC+8 Chris Harrelson wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 9:28 PM Wanming Lin <wanmi...@intel.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Chris, Daniel and all, >>>> >>>> The blocker issue >>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1209717 has been >>>> fixed now, and per above performance improvement @verwaest reported, can we >>>> start testing on Beta again? >>>> >>> >>> Sure, go ahead and experiment on canary/dev/beta, and then come back to >>> us with any new findings. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 1:59:25 AM UTC+8 08629...@gmail.com >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Re:[blink-dev] Ineng to Ship:Remove clamping of set Up >>>>> >>>>> BGODL209B013 >>>>> >>>>> ในวันที่ ศ. 11 มิ.ย. 2021 09:13 Wanming Lin <wanmi...@intel.com> >>>>> เขียนว่า: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> @verwaest reported at the revert CL >>>>>> <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2881077/2#message-2daf43353180fd00eff1ff8aa660f459c3189750>that >>>>>> this change would improve Speedometer2 by 5-6% on the Apple M1 and ~3% on >>>>>> our win10 perf bots. Thanks @verwaest! >>>>>> >>>>>> This is really a good improvement and a new impetus for us to push >>>>>> this optimization forward. One block at present is the navigation >>>>>> scheduling issue we reported: >>>>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1209717, which >>>>>> has been open for a while and no new updates. Could someone help to push >>>>>> it? Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> Moreover, is there other workaround solution to push the optimization >>>>>> forward? >>>>>> On Monday, May 17, 2021 at 3:17:48 PM UTC+8 Wanming Lin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Chris and Daniel, sorry I didn't explain clearly for the user >>>>>>> reported issue, which is actually a chrome bug, even with 1ms clamp, >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> issue may still happen in some other scenarios, I've created a separated >>>>>>> bug and explained the story at >>>>>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1209717. >>>>>>> PTAL, thanks! >>>>>>> I think it's worth an another intent once this bug be solved. As it >>>>>>> turns out, 1ms' clamp covers up some real chrome bugs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 3:44:33 AM UTC+8 Daniel Bratell wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As Chris said, it's good that you managed to identify some >>>>>>>> problematic areas during the beta phase. Of course it would have been >>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>> pleasant with no problems at all, but this was always a risky change. >>>>>>>> Hopefully you can use these bug reports to figure out a version of this >>>>>>>> change that doesn't cause those problems. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From a process point of view we will consider this intent "on hold" >>>>>>>> until you think it is ready to try again. At such a time, just return >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> this thread (or file a new intent if you think that would be cleaner). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /Daniel >>>>>>>> On 2021-05-13 19:55, Chris Harrelson wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for these data points. Are these the only bugs that were >>>>>>>> filed? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd say these bugs are exactly the kind of interop problems we >>>>>>>> should be worried about with this intent. Yes it's true that those >>>>>>>> sites >>>>>>>> shouldn't depend on these relative timings, and it's technically a >>>>>>>> site bug >>>>>>>> if so, but if it is widespread enough it still represents a big enough >>>>>>>> problem that it would block shipping this change in behavior. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Chris >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 1:24 AM Wanming Lin <wanmi...@intel.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you Philip! We actually received some regression bugs during >>>>>>>>> initial trial, including several pinpoint performance regressions and >>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>> user reported scheduling issue. But we finally identify they are all >>>>>>>>> caused >>>>>>>>> by other issues after investigation. Following's the bug summary: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Pinpoint regressions: >>>>>>>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1179810 >>>>>>>>> We identified the problem is with the perf story itself. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. en.wikipedia.org : User reports page is scrolled to the top >>>>>>>>> after closing overlay: >>>>>>>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1205285 >>>>>>>>> This should be an navigation scheduling issue. >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 3:40:33 PM UTC+8 Philip Jägenstedt >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Wanming, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This change has now been on beta for a time, and the revert on >>>>>>>>>> M91 is in progress. Can you summarize what you learned from bug >>>>>>>>>> reports >>>>>>>>>> coming in? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>> Philip >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 5:00 AM Wanming Lin <wanmi...@intel.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > Does that sound right to you? If so I can ask the release >>>>>>>>>>> managers about this plan. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, that sounds good! Thank you for your support! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 6:03:04 PM UTC+8 Philip Jägenstedt >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Wanming, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think the original timeline here won't work since your CL was >>>>>>>>>>>> reverted and relanded so many times, and I think I also made a >>>>>>>>>>>> mistake with >>>>>>>>>>>> the branching, since a change landed *after* the M90 branch >>>>>>>>>>>> point would never be in the M90 beta... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To bake in the the M91 beta, what we need to do is: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Land the change soon before the M91 branch point, which >>>>>>>>>>>> the latest reland >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/cd7dfaad25b9c93c440030fea8e441cf7bc39a5a> >>>>>>>>>>>> did >>>>>>>>>>>> - Allow the change to reach M91 beta (promoted Apr 22) >>>>>>>>>>>> - Revert it on the M91 branch well before the stable >>>>>>>>>>>> cut/release, let's say May 4 at the latest >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly how much exposure on the beta channel that will give >>>>>>>>>>>> depends on beta release dates, but it ought to be at least a week. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Does that sound right to you? If so I can ask the release >>>>>>>>>>>> managers about this plan. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> Philip >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 4:27 AM Wanming Lin <wanmi...@intel.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> All, the CL has been landed at >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2730350, >>>>>>>>>>>>> sorry for a bit delay due to another reverting during the period. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Philip, could you help to email the release engineers about >>>>>>>>>>>>> this change? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 6:14:15 AM UTC+8 Philip >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jägenstedt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good idea, Ian, I'll go ahead and do that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 5:48 PM Ian Kilpatrick < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ikilp...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philip - if you could also email the release engineers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly about this change - that likely would be pertinent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (just so this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is on their radar in case things go wrong, and if a revert in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Beta is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 1:28 AM Philip Jägenstedt < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foo...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Wanming, I'll review on the CL. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you check back in this thread on the week of March 22, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that there will be enough time to discuss before the branch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 3:07 AM Wanming Lin < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanmi...@intel.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philip, thanks for your comments! I've submitted the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reland CL at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2636507/, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please take a look. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 6, 2021 at 12:01:24 AM UTC+8 Philip >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jägenstedt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Wanming, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The most straightforward way to test this on beta (and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> canary before that) would be to land the code right after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the M90 branch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point (Feb 25) and then revert it some time well ahead of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the M91 branch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point (Apr 8). The beta promotion should be around Mar 11, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you should be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to get at least a few weeks on beta with this method. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, even if the beta baking does not reveal any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues, breakage due to this can be hard to understand, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code (libraries) that aren't easy to update. It would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prudent to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this a finch-controlled experiment, to avoid a potential >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urgent revert in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point release. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LGTM3 to trying this on beta with whichever method you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer at the moment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philip >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 3:34 AM Wanming Lin < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanmi...@intel.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Alex, Chris, very glad to see this great >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > You have my LGTM1 to flag this on for Beta for one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release, and as we get evidence back from that, we'd ask >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you to report it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. On the basis of that update, we'll then potentially >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approve a stable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> launch. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since I'm new to intent-to-ship process, could you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please guide me or provide BKMs on how to flag this on for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Beta for one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release, and what kinds of testing should be covered? Any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chromium program >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could help test and evaluate the impact? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides, I am thinking of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leveraging chrome://histograms/ to count the use of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setTimeout(..., 0) from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some hot websites, then we can do some basic testing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check if there's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious regression. Does it make sense? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wanming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 5, 2021 at 4:16:37 AM UTC+8 Chris >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harrelson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LGTM2 for testing on beta and coming back to the API >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> owners with the results. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 12:15 PM Alex Russell < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sligh...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the clarification, Geoffery. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wanming: we discussed this again at today's API OWNERS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meeting and, given what Mike and Ben noted here, we'd >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like to see this bake >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a while on Beta to shake out any potential compat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues. You have my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LGTM1 to flag this on for Beta for one release, and as we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get evidence back >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from that, we'd ask you to report it here. On the basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of that update, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we'll then potentially approve a stable launch. Does that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound good to you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if you have any more data as to why this change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improves things for users and developers, that would also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be helpful. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, February 1, 2021 at 12:01:42 PM UTC-8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> geoffrey garen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note: http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/17156/webkit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not the change that added the minimum timeout clamp. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> r17156 *reduced* a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-existing 10ms clamp to 1ms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 29, 2021 at 7:22:28 AM UTC-8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wande...@chromium.org wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also note that if you nest setTimeout(..., 0) enough >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (5 times?) then you start getting 4ms clamping anyway. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So this is really >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the first 4 or so setTimeout(..., 0) calls in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chain. I don't think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this intent is removing the 4ms clamping for nested >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timeouts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 10:20 AM Ben Kelly < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wande...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its possible folks are using setTimeout(.., 0) as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setImmediate() replacement which would result in high >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers. But that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use case would not be adversely impacted by removing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this clamping. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 4:01 AM Yoav Weiss < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yo...@yoav.ws> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 9:54 AM Wanming Lin < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanmi...@intel.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks all for your comments! I've created a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WebKit issue at: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=221124 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main motivation of this intent-to-ship is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to correct the scheduling and reduce potential >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance impact. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't find impact on live sites with/without 1ms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clamp maybe they‘ve >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already avoided the usage of setTimeout(..., 0) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since compatible risk is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really existed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have numbers on how often `setTimout(... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ,0)` is used? (use counters, HTTPArchive, cluster >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> telemetry, etc) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > What about setInterval? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since remove 1ms clamp exits risk, we'd like to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change setTimeout at first and base on discussion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result to see if it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable, if yes, we can apply it at setInterval >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as next step. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 29, 2021 at 6:14:07 AM UTC+8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Taylor wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Howdy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In general, I think if Firefox has been able to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ship this behavior it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely web-compatible (modulo different code >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paths being served behind >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UA sniffing). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There have been subtle race-y JS timing bug >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences between sites in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Firefox and Chrome that my old team (at Mozilla) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked at, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unfortunately I don't have any links to back >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that up. So there is some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> risk that sites are (unintentionally) relying on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the old behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, aligning with Firefox (and the HTML >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard) on this seems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good -- more so if WebKit is willing to do so as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A few questions: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about setInterval? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will setTimeout and setInterval be consistent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrt clamping after this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed change? (see also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1646799#c0) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/21 2:28 PM, Alex Russell wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > +mike taylor who may have insight into the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential compat risks, given >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > the different behavior between Gecko and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WebKit/Blink. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 4:53:47 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-8 Manuel Rego wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On 27/01/2021 03:01, Lin, Wanming wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Safari: 1ms clamp (WebKit's clamp at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/main/Source/WebCore/page/DOMTimer.cpp#L384 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/main/Source/WebCore/page/DOMTimer.cpp#L384> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/main/Source/WebCore/page/DOMTimer.cpp#L384 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/main/Source/WebCore/page/DOMTimer.cpp#L384>>) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Have we checked with WebKit if they have any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plans to change this or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > at some point? Is there a WebKit bug report or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Maybe you can ask for signals in webkit-dev, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > https://bit.ly/blink-signals < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bit.ly/blink-signals> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Bye, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Rego >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > You received this message because you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> receiving emails from it, send >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > <mailto:blink-dev+...@chromium.org>. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/025bd7a7-6be1-4b77-9c3a-32bb6b295812n%40chromium.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/025bd7a7-6be1-4b77-9c3a-32bb6b295812n%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emails from it, send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/5c1d6691-1ccd-4451-a491-56990ecc695fn%40chromium.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/5c1d6691-1ccd-4451-a491-56990ecc695fn%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emails from it, send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CACj%3DBEhAvLduQ6XXA-Vm-8%3DTM9L-d5q1_h-DrvrKLHg8NBvxEQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CACj%3DBEhAvLduQ6XXA-Vm-8%3DTM9L-d5q1_h-DrvrKLHg8NBvxEQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emails from it, send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/095fc193-27e5-4a7c-b816-edbab7eb176cn%40chromium.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/095fc193-27e5-4a7c-b816-edbab7eb176cn%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Google Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from it, send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAARdPYfU0La%3D3Fpd%3DHBVQ2phHuvMSozpOsXqt-NR-mtWepRJPQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAARdPYfU0La%3D3Fpd%3DHBVQ2phHuvMSozpOsXqt-NR-mtWepRJPQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>> send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/2869319d-e852-4f3b-8471-611f6ae7c9b4n%40chromium.org >>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/2869319d-e852-4f3b-8471-611f6ae7c9b4n%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>> send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOMQ%2Bw8JUEZDbfNsmXJWhcz_N7zcRwzoips2r_DzMEqhctwr1g%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOMQ%2Bw8JUEZDbfNsmXJWhcz_N7zcRwzoips2r_DzMEqhctwr1g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>>> >>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/b155d685-4b7e-498b-8e8a-1e9c95d4195an%40chromium.org >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/b155d685-4b7e-498b-8e8a-1e9c95d4195an%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/f2f1d2cf-0b9b-4ed4-ac0e-4f7d9a20e4c1n%40chromium.org >>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/f2f1d2cf-0b9b-4ed4-ac0e-4f7d9a20e4c1n%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "blink-dev" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/cb9aacdf-dc28-42b0-90cd-6c0faec080ffn%40chromium.org >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/cb9aacdf-dc28-42b0-90cd-6c0faec080ffn%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAARdPYdFPAxu6QSE-fYtT0KmJcDLzmj4pWtk0Sk5KwvaxjF5sw%40mail.gmail.com.
