On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 6:24 PM Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com> wrote:

>
> I think we should have some structure, not just freeform emails. We can
> start with a simple template, but there’s some info that folks almost
> always want, so it’s easier if it’s included in the first place, rather
> than needing predictable follow-up questions
>
> I also like having a title pattern, because that makes it easier to search
> email to find all things that fit the category.
>

FWIW, at blink-dev, we found a title pattern extremely helpful in enabling
scripts pick up intents that need reviewing, as well as enable more
visibility through twitter bots (e.g. the intenttoship@
<https://twitter.com/intenttoship> account)


> Basically, since for any given feature email, there’s many potential
> readers and only one sender, so it seems reasonable to ask the sender to do
> a little extra
>
> I had some sample templates (much simpler than the ones used by Chrome)
> which I will dig out and send here.
>
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 11:08 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks for starting this discussion.
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:33 PM Frédéric Wang <fw...@igalia.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The idea of an "intent to" process has been raised several times in the
>> past (e.g. in our 2020 goals [1]) and some people already use it
>> informally, but it does not seem that we have any agreement right now. Such
>> a process would help to coordinate changes internally (between port
>> maintainers and contributors) and externally (with standard groups, users
>> and other implementers). For the former point, see [2][3][4] for
>> examples of how coordination is not smooth right now. The latter point
>> will give a better understanding of what's happening in WebKit and help web
>> developer advocacy.
>>
>
> Having some kind of a process to announce a new Web facing API or behavior
> change is a good idea. In fact, we technically still have such a process
> although nobody seems to be using these days:
> https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/AddingFeatures
>
> The Mozilla and Chromium projects have their own process [5] [6]. We can
>> probably start with minimal rules and refine them in the future. We can
>> even make it mandatory only for new web platform features developed
>> under a runtime preference for now (i.e. excluding small features for
>> which it's not worth introducing a flag, behavior changes or
>> deprecation/removal). Below is a proposal based on Mozilla's one.
>>
>
> WebKit tends to err on the side of simpler rules so let's stick with that.
> I don't think we need an email template for example (I hate templates; all
> those intent to X emails on other engines' mailing lists look so silly).
>
> 1. Email webkit-dev with an intent to prototype.
>>
>
> I really dislike the idea of putting features into different stages like
> prototyping, etc... I'd prefer a much simpler approach in which a new
> feature or any behavior chance being worked on is announced on webkit-dev.
>
> In fact, I don't think we should have any rule about how emails are
> titled, etc... Emails just need to contain a certain set of information we
> need to evaluate whether a given feature / behavior change is good or not.
>
> Rather, what we need a guidance on is at which point something becomes a
> feature or a behavior change significant enough that an announcement on
> webkit-dev is necessary. For example, one could argue that any bug fix in
> Web facing API will affect its behavior. However, I don't think we want to
> be tracking every one of those behavior changes in WebKit on webkit-dev.
>
> Similarly, adding a new API has multitude of scales. On one hand, there is
> ResizeObserver and there is adding pointerLockElement on ShadowRoot
> <https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/209648/webkit>. At which point, should
> we be making webkit-dev announcement. Again, I don't think we want to be
> tracking the addition of every new DOM property, JS API, etc... on
> webkit-dev.
>
>
> I personally think every web platform facing change should be announced,
> but it’s ok if some broader feature announcements cover every property and
> attribute in the spec at the time, even if they don’t land all at once. On
> the other hand, in specs like HTML or DOM, many individual new markup
> attributes or DOM properties are a feature in themselves.
>
>
>
>  2. Implement the feature normally behind a off-by-default preference.
>>
>
> This is not a preference, it's a WebKit policy:
> https://webkit.org/feature-policy/
>
>
> I think he was using “preference” to mean “setting”, not to suggest that
> this is merely a preference and not required.
>
>
> 3. Email webkit-dev with an intent to ship.
>>
>
> I don't think this makes much sense in WebKit since there is no such a
> thing as shipping in WebKit. Each port maintainers decide which set of
> features will be enabled at when.
>
> Or do you mean that we enabling new feature / behavior by default? If so,
> then making such an announcement on webkit-dev requirement for Web facing
> feature / behavior change makes sense to me. But we should never use term
> such as "shipping".
>
> 4. If there's no negative feedback, ship (ports maintainer can still
>> disable the feature if they want to).
>>
>
> We should probably adopt the same 5 business day policy here.
>
> II/ Intent to prototype template
>>
>
> I don't think a template is necessary. We don't have a template for
> nominating reviewer, committer, etc...
>
> We should just have a list of topics / details / information each email
> should contain. We should probably have:
>
>    - Summary of new feature / behavior change
>    - Bug URL
>    - Spec URL / PR / Issue
>    - Status in other browsers
>
> I really don't think links to the related emails on webkit-dev, etc... is
> necessary because anyone interested in a given feature / behavior change
> will surely check the bug, etc...
>
> On the other hand, we should probably also create a way to track all these
> new features and behavior changes in some central place. For new Web facing
> features, we have: https://webkit.org/status/
>
> We should probably create some other page / tracking tool where all
> behavior changes to existing Web APIs are tracked. And updating of
> https://webkit.org/status/ as well as this new tracking tool should
> probably a part of the requirement of adding a new feature / making a Web
> facing behavioral change.
>
> - R. Niwa
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to