Hi all,
last February we got a thorough review of the class fields patch, and have
been updating it pretty frequently since. We think it's ready to be
reviewed again. Hopefully we'll manage to either land this first stage of
the feature, or receive enough new feedback to keep working on it. The bug
is: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174212
Cheers,
Xan
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:21 PM Mark Lam wrote:
> Hi Xan,
>
> FYI, if you’re writing JSC stress tests, you can add test specific options
> by putting the following at the top of the test file:
>
> //@ requireOptions(“--myOption=true”, “--myOtherOption=1234”)
>
> For LayoutTests, you can add the following to the top line of the test
> html file:
>
>
>
> This way, the feature can be disabled by default but still receive testing.
>
> Mark
>
> On Feb 14, 2019, at 9:27 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 14, 2019, at 1:37 AM, Xan Lopez wrote:
>
> Hi Maciej,
>
> the first patches had the flag indeed, so it should be easy to add it back
> to the patch. Not sure what's the usual procedure, but I guess it makes
> sense to enable it by default in the bug so that the bots keep testing the
> code? Then we'll disable it before landing if that's our decision.
>
>
> If it’s a runtime flag then it’s possible to have the tests run without
> having it enabled by default. This is one reason runtime flags are the
> preferred choice, the feature can be running tests all along while still
> getting further polish and refinement.
>
> For a compile-time flag, your approach sounds reasonable to me (patch that
> includes a default-on flag, ideally with a note in the ChangeLog that it
> will be flipped before landing).
>
> We almost never turn on features by default right in the patch where they
> first land, unless it is really small and simple, to reduce risk of anyone
> accidentally shipping it if they happen to cut a release branch soon after
> it lands (and before it has had enough bake time).
>
> BTW I appreciate the contribution of such a substantial feature, I regret
> that you haven’t gotten more active review, and I am glad that Saam is now
> giving you another review pass.
>
> Cheers,
> Maciej
>
>
> Cheers,
> Xan
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 8:47 AM Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>>
>> I left the boring review feedback that this work should be behind a
>> feature flag. Mentioning it here because this may apply to other feature
>> patches you have in progress. (I am not qualified to review the substance
>> of what the patch is doing.)
>>
>> > On Feb 13, 2019, at 1:51 PM, ca...@igalia.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi WebKitters,
>> >
>> > My colleagues at Igalia have been working on a number of JS language
>> features! We want WebKit to have implementations in order to provide
>> feedback for TC39, and to help meet the requirements to have them merged
>> into the specification proper.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, JSC suggested reviewers have been occupied for the past
>> 6 months, unable to provide feedback and help us upstream the patches. I'm
>> reaching out to see if there are other folks reading webkit-dev who might
>> be able to check on the work, see how it looks, and help us get this stuff
>> upstream. We've been doing internal reviews, but unfortunately don't yet
>> have any JSC reviewers on our team.
>> >
>> > You can find the patch for instance class fields at
>> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174212. Any kind of constructive
>> feedback (from anyone) would be much appreciated :)
>> >
>> > ___
>> > webkit-dev mailing list
>> > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
>> > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
>>
>> ___
>> webkit-dev mailing list
>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
>>
>
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
>
>
>
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
