| 07:53 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: when you have time, can you please test some WIP changes to the deploy.sh script to support W3C publication of the DOM spec? |
| 07:54 | <MikeSmith> | git checkout review-drafts-w3c-additions |
| 07:54 | <MikeSmith> | make review |
| 07:54 | <MikeSmith> | make deploy |
| 07:54 | <MikeSmith> | ... |
| 07:54 | <MikeSmith> | and you should end up with a dom.spec.whatwg.org/review-drafts/2019-12/index.html that includes MDN annotations |
| 08:06 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: I can but I also plan to publish today without such changes |
| 08:06 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 10:12 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: "DEPRECATION: Python 2.7 will reach the end of its life on January 1st, 2020. Please upgrade your Python as Python 2.7 won't be maintained after that date." oh joy |
| 10:12 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 10:12 | <MikeSmith> | bikeshed is all python2 still |
| 10:14 | <ato> | RedHat has committed maintain Python 2.7 until June 2024. |
| 10:14 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: where would I give feedback? |
| 10:15 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: I see one of my early comments about no inline style blocks still stands |
| 10:16 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: are these only the MDN changes? Searching for W3C doesn't give much apart from cross-references |
| 10:17 | <annevk> | ato: that's nice, though I guess that also means we better start? |
| 10:18 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: so far the only thing the patch on that branch adds is the MDN annos |
| 10:18 | <MikeSmith> | I am working on the other bits now |
| 10:18 | <MikeSmith> | ... which is, adding the logo and adding the status at the end |
| 10:19 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: I see |
| 10:19 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: I had missed there is a w3c-status.htm section |
| 10:19 | <ato> | Bikeshed may not have the same complication as WPT where we are forced to support both Python 2 and 3, because of the Apple test infrastructure ban on installing third-party dependencies. |
| 10:20 | <ato> | That should make things a bit easier. |
| 10:20 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: is the idea whatwg/dom would maintain that file? Or is that just for ease of development atm? |
| 10:21 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: I was wondering a bit about how we'd organize that and how comfortable we should be pulling in some HTML from elsewhere and such |
| 10:21 | <annevk> | ato: well, macOS will soon stop shipping Python, right? |
| 10:22 | <annevk> | ato: at that point it shouldn't matter |
| 10:22 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: I was thinking whatwg/dom would maintain the result, yeah |
| 10:22 | <ato> | Indeed, but the Bikeshed installation instructions recommends installing a custom Python on macOS due to security vulnerabilities in the Python bundled with macOS. |
| 10:23 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: is the deal that we will publish a separate Review Draft for W3C purposes? |
| 10:23 | <ato> | So as long as MacPorts and Homebrew keep shipping Python 2, Bikeshed will continue working on macOS even if Apple removes python2.7. |
| 10:23 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 10:24 | <MikeSmith> | otherwise we’d be up a creek |
| 10:24 | <annevk> | ato: search for Python in https://developer.apple.com/documentation/macos_release_notes/macos_catalina_10_15_release_notes |
| 10:24 | <annevk> | ato: oh sure, I'm not worried about that |
| 10:24 | <annevk> | ato: I was mentioning that as an argument for WPT being able to move on |
| 10:25 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: I don't know |
| 10:25 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: I'm actually confused how it will all work |
| 10:25 | <ato> | annevk: Ah yes! There’s already progress on porting wptrunner, but there are some non-trivial tasks left as I understand it. |
| 10:26 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: I thought the idea was that W3C would prepare notes in advance of a RD publication and those would be inlined somehow upon publication |
| 10:26 | <MikeSmith> | that is what the status section is |
| 10:26 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: however, it appears review is happening on older drafts and some people expect us to mutate these older RDs with notes |
| 10:27 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: that seems quite silly to me as these are supposed to be immutable |
| 10:27 | <ato> | (gsnedders has the nitty-gritty details, but essentially the manifest parser produces widely different results on Python 2 and 3, despite the program being entirely Python 3 compatible. It has to do with a change in string/binary comparison/coercion.) |
| 10:27 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: so sorry, I'm not actually sure |
| 10:27 | <MikeSmith> | https://www.w3.org/2019/01/whatwg-w3c-sample.html is what I am working from |
| 10:28 | <MikeSmith> | as far as "some people expect us to mutate these older RDs with notes" I think the answer to that just needs to be No |
| 10:28 | <MikeSmith> | I don’t know who is expecting that but that is not what I understand from talking with plh at least |
| 10:28 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: a reasonable question is though how you can have reviewed it as recommendation if it was changing up until the day before |
| 10:29 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 10:29 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: but I thought that's what the status section things were for plus mdn annotations |
| 10:29 | <MikeSmith> | right |
| 10:29 | <MikeSmith> | me too |
| 10:29 | <annevk> | Okay, so maybe we're on the same page, but Domenic isn't |
| 10:30 | <MikeSmith> | ah OK, let’s chat with Domenic about it when he’s here |
| 10:30 | <MikeSmith> | in the mean time I’ll finish up on the code parts of automating the insertion of the W3C stuff |
| 10:32 | <annevk> | Thanks, overall it looks good to me (including that sample we previously reviewed). There's some cleanup to do with inline styles (and maybe scripts), but not much |
| 10:33 | <annevk> | And MDN annotations are great to have in general of course |
| 10:33 | <annevk> | Especially in this automatic fashion |
| 10:34 | <annevk> | ato: making a backwards incompatible release was dumb and string changes might have been the dumbest |
| 10:35 | <annevk> | And of course, benefit of hindsight, but I think by the time it happened there was already massive evidence that platforms that evolve mostly compatibly do better |
| 10:36 | <ato> | annevk: The whole debacle makes me very sad. |
| 12:15 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: thanks for looking it over |
| 12:15 | <MikeSmith> | I pushed the rest of the changes to the branch just now |
| 12:16 | <MikeSmith> | so if you do "make deploy" again, you should now get a review draft that includes the W3C logo and the Status section at the end |
| 12:17 | <MikeSmith> | ... and with that, I am done as far as the code part of automating production of W3C-ready Review Drafts for the DOM spec |
| 12:18 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: it'd be interesting to see the changes to deploy and review too |
| 12:18 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: the shell scripts that is |
| 12:19 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: in the at-risk section there's some missing closing parenthesis |
| 12:19 | <MikeSmith> | ok, I’ll fix the closing-parenthesis thing |
| 12:20 | <MikeSmith> | as far as the changes to the deploy and review scripts, the intent is that those won’t need to change |
| 12:20 | <MikeSmith> | I think |
| 12:20 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: there needs to be some change to get that w3c-status.html inlined, no? |
| 12:21 | <MikeSmith> | the changes I made to them for now were just to make it use bikeshed locally, rather than remotely — and to use bikeshed from the mdn-annotations branch |
| 12:21 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: that part I put into the python script |
| 12:22 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: interesting |
| 12:22 | <MikeSmith> | yeah that python script just gets called by setting POST_BUILD_STEP |
| 12:22 | <MikeSmith> | the deploy script already has that the POST_BUILD_STEP hook |
| 12:23 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: does that work if review-drafts/ already contains older published copies? |
| 12:23 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: I guess maybe those won't be there |
| 12:24 | <MikeSmith> | right those are not under version control there |
| 12:24 | <MikeSmith> | not in the dom repo |
| 12:24 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: if we can use Bikeshed's insertion feature that might be more future proof, but that's a minor detail too |
| 12:24 | <MikeSmith> | but I guess what we would do is to check in the w3c-logo-status-insert-into-review-drafts.py w3c-logo.html and w3c-status.html files to the dom repo |
| 12:24 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 12:25 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: for now, I wanted to make it work without changing the dom.bs source at all |
| 12:25 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: okay |
| 12:26 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: so yeah, I think the main thing to sort out here is how this joint publication is to work in more detail |
| 12:26 | <MikeSmith> | right |
| 12:26 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: perhaps some coordination between plh/you/HTML WG chairs/SG is warranted |
| 12:26 | <MikeSmith> | yup |
| 12:26 | <annevk> | And I guess Domenic and I since we gotta review |
| 12:27 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 12:28 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: anyway, plenty of time for that as I'm taking a break for a couple of weeks (happy holidays!) and it won't block the current DOM RD (per SG decision) |
| 12:28 | <MikeSmith> | super |
| 12:29 | <annevk> | (well, not an official SG decision I guess, but that's what it came down to) |
| 12:29 | <MikeSmith> | OK good enough |
| 12:29 | <MikeSmith> | from W3C side, we have not yet gotten approval for the transition to CR anyway |
| 12:29 | <MikeSmith> | plh has been waiting on me to get the work done on producing a W3C-ready version |
| 12:32 | <MikeSmith> | anyway for now I guess I will push a W3C-ready version to a domspec-w3c-ready.herokuapp.com URL so others can review |
| 12:32 | <MikeSmith> | and I can push subsequent fixes/updates to that as needed |
| 12:33 | <MikeSmith> | for now I will fix the parenthesis typo |
| 12:36 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: if you want you can also open a (perhaps a WIP one) PR against DOM so other can take a look if they want |
| 12:38 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: OK, will do that too |
| 12:43 | <annevk> | 👍🏻🎉 |
| 14:28 | <Domenic> | annevk: MikeSmith: the agreement seems very clear. We mutate review drafts in place. |
| 14:29 | <Domenic> | annevk has expressed confusion on this point a few times but both myself and the SG have stepped in to clear up that no, that's what we do. |
| 14:29 | <Domenic> | I'm a bit surprised we're revisiting this. |
| 14:42 | <annevk> | Domenic: yeah, the MoU indeed spells it out, my understand is probably from a prior discussion; I don't really like where this ended up as it's a lot more management, but I guess since there is this MoU the W3C can do that and we'd have to trust the security of that setup (or figure out sandboxing) |
| 14:42 | <annevk> | understanding* sigh |
| 14:43 | <Domenic> | I don't quite get the security concerns; we don't need to have them make edits directly. Any edits can go through PRs. |
| 14:44 | <Domenic> | E.g. one technical route is to pull down the current compiled RD text into the repo and then do PRs against that. (But, that might work poorly with the work MikeSmith is doing, since we probably want to re-compile with Bikeshed.) |
| 14:45 | <MikeSmith> | in the end I can do it however we need |
| 14:47 | <Domenic> | In my mind the ideal flow would be that we update the `Status: RD` to `Status: RD-CR` then `Status: RD-REC` and each time the CI process deploys the new document like normal for RD publication (just at the same URL) and everything works great. But I think the danger there is if things change in Bikeshed in the intervening 6 months or whatever horizontal review takes, such that things no longer compile, then we could be |
| 14:47 | <Domenic> | in for some pain. |
| 14:47 | <annevk> | If they go through PRs we'd have to handle them |
| 14:47 | <annevk> | One of my goals was no additional work for editors long term |
| 14:48 | <Domenic> | Hmm, OK, that was not my goal. |
| 14:48 | <Domenic> | Adding additional work on the same order of magnitude as the current RD process (which is pretty small I think?) was what I was envisioning. |
| 14:50 | <Domenic> | I also want to make sure we have a process that is relatively easy for MikeSmith :) |
| 14:50 | <Domenic> | So please don't implement my "ideal flow" if there's something easier you had in mind |
| 14:55 | <MikeSmith> | writing and maintaining the automation for it is relatively easy regardless of how/when we choose to deploy the W3C-ready RDs, I guess |
| 14:55 | <MikeSmith> | the harder part right now is getting the code for the MDN-annotations feature landed |
| 14:56 | <MikeSmith> | that is gonna need review from TabAtkins still |
| 14:56 | <Domenic> | But that part gives giant ecosystem-wide benefits <3 |
| 14:57 | <MikeSmith> | yeah :) |
| 15:04 | <TabAtkins> | Is your patch ready for review MikeSmith ? |
| 15:05 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: yes |
| 15:07 | <TabAtkins> | Ah kk. Whatever tooling you use for pushing commits just says "Fixup!" for every commit message, so I couldn't tell what was happening in your commits |
| 15:08 | <MikeSmith> | ah OK |
| 15:08 | <MikeSmith> | yeah I made some tweaks to it and probably there are some things I have overlooked but at this point is stable for review purposes |
| 15:10 | <MikeSmith> | I can just squash all those subsequent commits |
| 15:11 | <MikeSmith> | if you prefer |
| 15:12 | <TabAtkins> | I'll take care of that; they're not an ongoing problem, it just means I have no clue what each commit is actually doing unless I load up the gh page and carefully look. |
| 15:14 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: Bikeshed will be upgraded to Python 3 early next year btw |
| 15:20 | <MikeSmith> | (TabAtkins: I just made the subsequent commits (rather then amend-ing and force pushing) because I wasn’t sure if you had started to review the code yet and so I didn’t want to clobber what you were looking over) |
| 15:52 | <annevk> | I think patching the generated file is the way to go without reproducible builds, also to make it clear to lawyers what the delta actually is (I presume they're not interested in source delta). I guess this could be either editor-mediated on our side or with some kind of hook that can be called remotely (though ideally that goes through some kind of git repo for analysis). |
| 17:19 | <annevk> | I’m out until around the end of the year btw. Might check things sometimes. |
| 17:24 | <annevk> | Happy holidays! 🎄 |
| 17:26 | <Domenic> | \o/ |
| 18:01 | <TabAtkins> | MikeSmith: Ah, I wasn't sure if I should *start* reviewing, since you were apparently pushing fixups the whole time. ^_^ (What are you using to push those commits, btw? I've seen someone else pushing those plain "Fixup" commit messages.) |
| 18:02 | <TabAtkins> | Domenic, annevk: If reproducible builds are wanted, it shouldn't be difficult to do now that bikeshed-data is versioned as well. |
| 18:06 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: interesting, though we'll have to see about all the surrounding infrastructure as well I suppose and for HTML it's going to be vastly different :-( |
| 18:06 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: ^^ |
| 22:01 | <domfarolino> | annevk: I know you're out until EOY, buuutttt if you get around to it, I've addressed the lazyload nits :) (enjoy break) |