/irc-logs / w3c / #testing / 2013-10-29 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Tue Oct 29 00:00:00 2013
  2. # Session Ident: #testing
  3. # [00:04] * Joins: mdas (~mdas@public.cloak)
  4. # [00:18] * heycam|away is now known as heycam
  5. # [00:56] * Quits: AutomatedTester (~AutomatedTester@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
  6. # [01:05] * Joins: zcorpan (~zcorpan@public.cloak)
  7. # [01:11] * Joins: plh (plehegar@public.cloak)
  8. # [01:12] * Quits: zcorpan (~zcorpan@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
  9. # [02:40] * Quits: plh (plehegar@public.cloak) ("Leaving")
  10. # [02:44] * Quits: rhauck1 (~Adium@public.cloak) ("Leaving.")
  11. # [03:06] * Quits: ArtB (~abarsto@public.cloak) ("Leaving.")
  12. # [03:30] * Joins: rhauck (~Adium@public.cloak)
  13. # [03:41] * Quits: mdas (~mdas@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
  14. # [03:42] * Joins: mdas (~mdas@public.cloak)
  15. # [03:49] * Quits: mdas (~mdas@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
  16. # [04:18] * heycam is now known as heycam|away
  17. # [04:20] * Joins: mdas (~mdas@public.cloak)
  18. # [04:21] * Quits: rhauck (~Adium@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
  19. # [05:03] * heycam|away is now known as heycam
  20. # [05:27] * Joins: denis (denis@public.cloak)
  21. # [06:34] * Quits: denis (denis@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
  22. # [06:44] * Joins: denis (denis@public.cloak)
  23. # [08:13] * Joins: zcorpan (~zcorpan@public.cloak)
  24. # [08:16] * Quits: Lachy (~Lachy@public.cloak) ("My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…")
  25. # [08:27] * Joins: Ms2ger (~Ms2ger@public.cloak)
  26. # [08:47] * Joins: Lachy (~Lachy@public.cloak)
  27. # [08:50] * Quits: Ms2ger (~Ms2ger@public.cloak) ("bbl")
  28. # [08:55] * heycam is now known as heycam|away
  29. # [09:00] * Quits: denis (denis@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
  30. # [09:10] * Joins: denis (denis@public.cloak)
  31. # [09:35] * Quits: Lachy (~Lachy@public.cloak) ("My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…")
  32. # [10:06] * Joins: darobin (rberjon@public.cloak)
  33. # [10:17] * Joins: Lachy (~Lachy@public.cloak)
  34. # [10:29] * Joins: Ms2ger (~Ms2ger@public.cloak)
  35. # [11:25] * Joins: abarsto (~abarsto@public.cloak)
  36. # [11:25] * abarsto is now known as ArtB
  37. # [11:27] <jgraham> darobin: So if you are planning to run wptserve on w3c-test.org you should probably a) look at the review and b) get a test instance installed to try it out
  38. # [11:27] <darobin> jgraham: I am certainly looking into that, not sure I'll have time to get to it this week
  39. # [11:28] <darobin> but we were talking with plh about the steps to get there yesterday
  40. # [11:28] <jgraham> OK. The review is all proceeding at a reaonable pace, so it isn't going to be too long before you are the blocking factor
  41. # [11:29] <jgraham> (AutomatedTester actually reviewed the whole server, but I think Ms2ger and some others are still planning to look at it)
  42. # [11:31] <jgraham> And the tests review is at 60% with mostly trivial issues
  43. # [11:32] <Ms2ger> Yeah, I got into a meeting right before starting to look at the actual code
  44. # [11:32] <Ms2ger> And when I came out, AutomatedTester was done
  45. # [11:33] <MikeSmith> he must have automated the review somehow
  46. # [11:34] <jgraham> Ms2ger: Please don't let that prevent you looking if you have time :)
  47. # [11:34] <Ms2ger> Heh, time
  48. # [11:34] <darobin> jgraham: well, there is only so much I can review python code usefully
  49. # [11:34] <jgraham> MikeSmith: AutomatedReviewer? That sounds like some kind of geek superhero
  50. # [11:35] <darobin> I mean I'll understand it and all, but it's unlikely I'll catch any serious bug
  51. # [11:35] <jgraham> darobin: OK
  52. # [11:35] <darobin> but I'll look
  53. # [11:35] * jgraham feels that the issues / lines of code ratio is unrealistically low at the moment
  54. # [11:38] * Joins: michou (~Adium@public.cloak)
  55. # [11:52] <Ms2ger> jgraham, https://twitter.com/girayozil/status/306836785739210752
  56. # [11:58] <jgraham> Ms2ger: http://logbot.glob.com.au/?c=mozilla%23ateam&s=28%20Oct%202013&e=28%20Oct%202013#c701510
  57. # [11:58] <Ms2ger> It's true
  58. # [11:59] <MikeSmith> me wonders what is #ateam
  59. # [12:00] <Ms2ger> Automation & Tools
  60. # [12:01] <Ms2ger> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Auto-tools
  61. # [12:01] <MikeSmith> ah
  62. # [12:01] <MikeSmith> thanks
  63. # [12:05] <jgraham> Ms2ger is actually Mr T
  64. # [12:05] <jgraham> Or was I not supposed to say that
  65. # [12:05] <Ms2ger> Ohcrap
  66. # [12:06] * Ms2ger is now known as MrT
  67. # [12:06] <MrT> I guess I'm outed now
  68. # [12:40] * Quits: MrT (~Ms2ger@public.cloak) ("lunch")
  69. # [12:56] * Joins: Jazcash (~Jazcash@public.cloak)
  70. # [12:57] * Parts: Jazcash (~Jazcash@public.cloak)
  71. # [12:58] * Joins: plh (plehegar@public.cloak)
  72. # [13:36] * Quits: zcorpan (~zcorpan@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
  73. # [13:48] <darobin> jgraham: what does it mean when a file listed in the review is "pending"?
  74. # [13:50] <jgraham> darobin: It means that you aren't an assigned reviewer for that file
  75. # [13:52] <jgraham> darobin: This happened because AutomatedTester quite reasonably assumed that "I will review this" was non-exclusive
  76. # [13:53] <jgraham> Whereas it actually means something more like "I am the only person who will sign off on this"
  77. # [13:53] <jgraham> darobin: BTW, did you talk to jl?
  78. # [13:54] <darobin> jgraham: ah, okay, gotcha
  79. # [13:54] <darobin> well, so I successfully reviewed, err, the .gitignore and the design.txt :)
  80. # [13:54] <darobin> yay me!
  81. # [13:54] <jgraham> https://critic-review.org/r/197 if you didn't
  82. # [13:54] <jgraham> darobin: I will remove the filters from the review
  83. # [13:55] <darobin> jgraham: yes, I spoke to jl, and he told me it wasn't possible at the time
  84. # [13:55] <darobin> but... that r197 looks new!
  85. # [13:55] * darobin looks
  86. # [13:59] <jgraham> darobin: You should now be able to mark anything reviewed again
  87. # [13:59] <jgraham> (you could always raise issues)
  88. # [14:01] * Joins: tobie (tobie@public.cloak)
  89. # [14:02] * Quits: tobie (tobie@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
  90. # [14:03] <darobin> jgraham: cool, ta
  91. # [14:04] <darobin> ah, I didn't understand that much
  92. # [14:04] <jgraham> Didn't understand what?
  93. # [14:05] <darobin> that I could raise issues on something that was marked "pending"
  94. # [14:05] <jgraham> You can raise issues on anything
  95. # [14:05] <darobin> I also didn't know that marking reviewed was exclusive
  96. # [14:05] <darobin> yeah, I'm getting that much now
  97. # [14:05] <jgraham> All that being a reviewer means is that it's in your dashboard, you get email, and you get to decide when the file is reviewed
  98. # [14:06] <darobin> so basically, when I read through some code and I don't find issues, I have no way of marking something as reviewed without preventing others from doing that as well?
  99. # [14:06] <jgraham> I didn't understand that sentence
  100. # [14:06] * Joins: zcorpan (~zcorpan@public.cloak)
  101. # [14:07] <jgraham> If you read through some code and you are not an assigned reviewer you can't mark the code as reviewed
  102. # [14:07] <jgraham> But you can raise issues
  103. # [14:07] <darobin> right
  104. # [14:07] <darobin> what I had in mind was this
  105. # [14:07] <darobin> I read a file, I find no issues
  106. # [14:07] <darobin> I just wanted to store the information that I'd reviewed it, but without exclusively owning it
  107. # [14:07] <jgraham> Effectively the reviewer permission is "can mark files as reviewed"
  108. # [14:08] <darobin> i.e. perhaps I am not the best person to review that, but my review may still be meaningful
  109. # [14:08] <jgraham> Yeah, so the review status isn't per-reviewer
  110. # [14:08] <darobin> right, that's what confused me
  111. # [14:08] <jgraham> I see
  112. # [14:08] <jgraham> I guess that could be useful in some situations
  113. # [14:09] <jgraham> Although presumably if you don't own the code, the person who does will be expected to do a "proper review" later anyway
  114. # [14:09] <darobin> IMHO typical cases could be when the change touches on several aspects
  115. # [14:09] <darobin> e.g. I might review it for embedded docs while someone else reviews for the actual code
  116. # [14:09] <jgraham> It is always possible to leave a note ofc
  117. # [14:09] <darobin> yes, sure
  118. # [14:11] * Quits: mdas (~mdas@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
  119. # [14:11] * Joins: Ms2ger (~Ms2ger@public.cloak)
  120. # [14:11] * Joins: mdas (~mdas@public.cloak)
  121. # [14:11] <jgraham> So I guess at the moment I would suggest doing that if you think that the work you have done should be recorded e.g. to avoid duplicate effort, yet it didn't result in any issues.
  122. # [14:12] * Joins: tobie (tobie@public.cloak)
  123. # [14:14] <darobin> jgraham: yes, understood, it's not necessarily the case for this specific review but it's something I'll keep in mind when needed
  124. # [14:17] <jgraham> Ms2ger: FWIW I don't see a reason that wptserve should be BSD/W3C licensed rather than just BSD licensed
  125. # [14:17] * Quits: zcorpan (~zcorpan@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
  126. # [14:18] <Ms2ger> jgraham, I was just enquiring, not sure if I prefer either way
  127. # [14:18] * Quits: mdas (~mdas@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
  128. # [14:19] <jgraham> (The W3C software license doesn't seem to offer anything that the BSD license doesn't, but has annoying clauses about providing notices of modifications)
  129. # [14:46] * Joins: mdas (~mdas@public.cloak)
  130. # [14:55] <darobin> doesn't dual-licensing allow the recipient to pick BSD if it's BSD/W3C?
  131. # [15:04] * Joins: AutomatedTester (~AutomatedTester@public.cloak)
  132. # [15:25] <jgraham> I don't understand dual licensing for that reason
  133. # [15:26] <jgraham> If one license is less restrictive than the other, yet offers the same other benefits, what would be the benefit of picking the more restrictive license?
  134. # [15:28] <wilhelm> Restriction may be a benefit.
  135. # [15:29] <jgraham> In this case it is only a burden afaict
  136. # [15:30] <jgraham> And if it were a benefit, I still wouldn't understand why you would dual license
  137. # [15:33] <jgraham> (I think that the W3C Software License is supposed to be copyleft, and dual licensing with a BSD-style license would remove any benefit from that, so as a combination it doesn't make sense to me)
  138. # [15:34] <jgraham> (Dual licensing W3C Testsuite / BSD makes more sense because in one case you are allowed to say you used the "W3C web-platform-test testsuite" but in the other you are only allowed to say the "web-platform-test testsuite")
  139. # [16:07] <darobin> jgraham: may I suggest you bring your questions to Wendy?
  140. # [16:07] <darobin> want me to put you in touch?
  141. # [16:09] * Quits: denis (denis@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
  142. # [16:09] * Joins: denis (denis@public.cloak)
  143. # [16:14] <jgraham> darobin: Trick question? :) I only really want to spend time discussing this if someone is actually going to object to my favoured plan of making the server BSD licensed.
  144. # [16:15] <darobin> I think that could be an issue, though I'm not sure
  145. # [16:16] <darobin> if it's shipping as part of a W3C test suite, it could be a problem; though maybe it can be considered a dependency
  146. # [16:16] <darobin> let me ask Wendy and cc you
  147. # [16:16] <jgraham> It's as much "part" of it as the BSD-licensed pywebsocket is
  148. # [16:17] <jgraham> So if the rule is "W3C licenses everywhere" then we have a major problem
  149. # [16:17] <jgraham> darobin: Thanks for your review so far btw, if is very helpful
  150. # [16:20] <darobin> jgraham: well if it's clearly a third-party dependency then I don't need to loop in Wendy, we're good
  151. # [16:20] <darobin> jgraham: np, I think I've reviewed as much as my limited python-fu can
  152. # [16:22] <jgraham> darobin: Well, obviously I'm not a lawyer. In both cases we have code that depends on the specific server being used.
  153. # [16:22] <darobin> jgraham: that's fine, we previously had .htaccess that depends on Apache; which last I checked wasn't W3C-licensed
  154. # [16:23] <jgraham> YEah, it seems absurd that someone would get upset about this
  155. # [16:23] <jgraham> (also we had .php)
  156. # [16:24] <Ms2ger> Those are all pretty clearly third-party, though
  157. # [16:26] <jgraham> webidl2.js is MIT licensed
  158. # [16:26] <darobin> yeah, it's third-party too
  159. # [16:27] <jgraham> It's about as "third party" as wptserve is afaict
  160. # [16:27] <darobin> yeah, which is why I think you're safe
  161. # [16:27] <darobin> or rather, we're safe — you are no matter what since it's your baby :)
  162. # [16:27] <tobie> Yeah--I don't think this matters much, tbh.
  163. # [16:28] * jgraham -> sardine can
  164. # [16:28] <jgraham> uh, sorry, I mean "underground train"
  165. # [16:29] <tobie> ?
  166. # [16:30] <darobin> mmmm, can someone at Mozilla go reboot jgraham's sentence generator? It seems to have become stuck again
  167. # [16:30] <darobin> the switch is slightly to the left of the pony tail
  168. # [16:44] <Ms2ger> I'm sure someone will hit it in the sardine can
  169. # [16:59] * Joins: gitbot (~gitbot@public.cloak)
  170. # [16:59] -gitbot:#testing- [web-platform-tests] Ms2ger opened pull request #394: Update window-properties.html to current WebIDL. (master...window-own-properties) https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/394
  171. # [16:59] * Parts: gitbot (~gitbot@public.cloak) (gitbot)
  172. # [17:56] * Quits: Lachy (~Lachy@public.cloak) ("My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…")
  173. # [17:58] * Quits: michou (~Adium@public.cloak) ("Leaving.")
  174. # [17:59] * Joins: rhauck (~Adium@public.cloak)
  175. # [18:10] * Quits: ArtB (~abarsto@public.cloak) ("Leaving.")
  176. # [18:11] * Quits: tobie (tobie@public.cloak)
  177. # [18:19] * Joins: tobie (tobie@public.cloak)
  178. # [18:20] * Quits: tobie (tobie@public.cloak)
  179. # [18:24] * Joins: jhammel (~jhammel@public.cloak)
  180. # [18:29] * Quits: rhauck (~Adium@public.cloak) ("Leaving.")
  181. # [18:32] * Joins: rhauck (~Adium@public.cloak)
  182. # [18:37] * Joins: darobin_ (rberjon@public.cloak)
  183. # [18:43] * Quits: darobin (rberjon@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
  184. # [19:15] * Quits: mdas (~mdas@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
  185. # [19:15] * Joins: mdas (~mdas@public.cloak)
  186. # [19:22] * Quits: mdas (~mdas@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
  187. # [19:56] * Quits: darobin_ (rberjon@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
  188. # [19:57] <jgraham> Oh dammit, I was going to ask darobin something and didn't notice he was here with an _ name until he quit
  189. # [19:58] <jgraham> So, I guess I will ask anyone:
  190. # [19:58] <jgraham> HEAD requests to wptserve: how should those work
  191. # [19:58] <jgraham> a) Only return a body if you write directly to the output from a python script
  192. # [19:59] <jgraham> b) Return a body iff there is some kind of magic switch
  193. # [19:59] * Joins: mdas (~mdas@public.cloak)
  194. # [19:59] <jgraham> c) Always behave like GET and return a body (except where a script handles them differently)
  195. # [20:00] <jgraham> At the moment we do a) which darobin pointed out isn't optimal
  196. # [20:00] <jgraham> I would like to do b) but I'm not sure what the best kind of magic is
  197. # [20:01] <jgraham> I was thinking that you could specify a handler like (("HEAD", "GET"), "/foo", do_stuff) and that would return a body if there was one, whereas the same thing with only "GET" wouldn't
  198. # [20:02] <jgraham> But that seems rather magical and doesn't really allow you to easily have a body or not for existing resources
  199. # [20:05] * Joins: tobie (tobie@public.cloak)
  200. # [20:11] * Quits: denis (denis@public.cloak) ("Bye")
  201. # [20:34] * Quits: tobie (tobie@public.cloak)
  202. # [20:41] * Quits: AutomatedTester (~AutomatedTester@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
  203. # [21:02] * Joins: tobie (tobie@public.cloak)
  204. # [21:34] * Quits: jhammel (~jhammel@public.cloak) ("jhammel -> afk")
  205. # [21:36] * Quits: plh (plehegar@public.cloak) ("Leaving")
  206. # [21:42] * Quits: Ms2ger (~Ms2ger@public.cloak) ("nn")
  207. # [22:15] * Joins: Lachy (~Lachy@public.cloak)
  208. # [22:45] * Joins: jhammel (~jhammel@public.cloak)
  209. # [22:46] * Parts: jhammel (~jhammel@public.cloak) (jhammel)
  210. # Session Close: Wed Oct 30 00:00:00 2013

The end :)