| 03:31 | <annevk> | gsnedders: seems reasonable |
| 04:25 | <annevk> | heycam: could you disable "merge" for the webidl repo? |
| 04:27 | <heycam> | annevk: done. leave squash and rebase enabled? |
| 04:27 | <annevk> | heycam: yeah, those are both safe from a linear history perspective |
| 04:28 | <heycam> | cool ok |
| 04:31 | <annevk> | tobie: I don't think you ran "bikeshed update" after "git pull" in the bikeshed directory |
| 04:31 | <annevk> | tobie: afaict you also need to make changes to index.bs |
| 06:40 | <tobie> | annevk: it WFM--think there might be something wrong with your latest bs update. |
| 06:40 | <tobie> | annevk: or when you pulled the new changes |
| 06:41 | <annevk> | tobie: maybe I'm getting cached anchor data or some such? |
| 06:42 | <annevk> | tobie: I have no idea what could be wrong if something is though |
| 06:42 | <tobie> | annevk: are you in the right branch in bikeshed? |
| 06:42 | <tobie> | annevk: when you git log, does it reflect the latest changes? |
| 06:43 | <tobie> | annevk: heah sha should be f521a3b50a4c8e312ba5df7d76a31191127f7a2f |
| 06:43 | <tobie> | *head (sorry just woke up) |
| 06:44 | <annevk> | tobie: yes |
| 06:44 | <tobie> | annevk: o_O |
| 06:44 | <tobie> | annevk: seems like it's an bs update issue |
| 06:44 | <tobie> | annevk: which is also weird |
| 06:44 | <botie> | okay, tobie. |
| 06:45 | <annevk> | tobie: hmm so now I only get the one warning |
| 06:45 | <tobie> | now what triggered botie here I don't know. |
| 06:45 | <annevk> | tobie: so yeah, maybe bikeshed update doesn't always work properly |
| 06:45 | <tobie> | annevk: oh, well good! Now I can get coffee. :) |
| 06:46 | <annevk> | tobie: do that, but there's also still something wrong in that I get slightly different syntax highlighting markup |
| 06:46 | <tobie> | annevk: I've bumped the date on that PR and forced-pushed btw |
| 06:46 | <annevk> | tobie: okay |
| 06:46 | <annevk> | tobie: there's some bikeshed dependency that you might not have updated (or me, but I think I did recently) |
| 06:47 | <tobie> | annevk: so that's why I ran: https://github.com/heycam/webidl/commit/7ff028948b67eb7cd587ff9d17b556a1f5e3261a |
| 06:48 | <tobie> | annevk, TabAtkins: any idea what I need to do to make sure my dependencies are up to date? |
| 06:48 | <annevk> | tobie: okay, so I guess mine is out-of-date then |
| 06:49 | <annevk> | tobie: oh, hmm not sure |
| 06:49 | <tobie> | annevk: mmm :( |
| 06:49 | <annevk> | tobie: I think pygments needs to be updated |
| 06:50 | <annevk> | tobie: "pip install pygments lxml --upgrade" is what bikeshed suggests |
| 06:53 | <annevk> | That tells me I got the latest |
| 06:57 | <tobie> | annevk: upgrading. |
| 06:58 | <tobie> | annevk: it's weird though, why would these markup discrepancies suddenly show up? |
| 07:00 | <tobie> | annevk: OK, now up to date with pygments too. There's a diff, but it's quite small. |
| 07:00 | <tobie> | annevk: (compared to the one I pointed to above) |
| 07:01 | <annevk> | tobie: yeah, it was small here too |
| 07:01 | <tobie> | annevk: good. |
| 07:01 | <annevk> | tobie: I think it mostly shows up due to folks with different setups colliding, might be that you, bz, and heycam all had the same version of pygments somehow |
| 07:02 | <tobie> | annevk: probably. We all updated it at the same time a while back for a similar issue |
| 07:48 | <annevk> | Is there a way to apply Ignored Vars locally? |
| 07:48 | <annevk> | It doesn't seem like a good global feature since you might end up ignoring a variable with the same name that should be reused |
| 08:29 | <tobie> | annevk: there isn't, see: http://logs.glob.uno/?c=freenode%23whatwg&s=25+Oct+2016&e=25+Oct+2016#c1009363 |
| 08:38 | <tobie> | annevk: filed https://github.com/tabatkins/bikeshed/issues/859 |
| 08:41 | <annevk> | tobie: ta |
| 08:51 | <tobie> | What's the best format for Security and Privacy consideration section? |
| 08:51 | <tobie> | possible threat model followed by suggested or implemented mitigation strategies? |
| 08:54 | <tobie> | Seriously, the model where we have /tr and editor's draft all over the place is the biggest drag ever. |
| 09:16 | <tobie> | mkwst_: are you still working on https://w3ctag.github.io/security-questionnaire/ ? |
| 10:24 | <annevk> | tobie: I would not worry too much about it |
| 10:24 | <tobie> | annevk: this is for sensors-not WebIDL. |
| 10:25 | <annevk> | tobie: for IDL we can write stuff in there about the binding layer protecting the C underbelly, but by far all other issues are more important |
| 10:25 | <annevk> | tobie: I see |
| 10:25 | <annevk> | tobie: I guess for those you need to go through the various sensor-based attacks |
| 10:28 | <annevk> | Dedicated security sections still seem somewhat wrong btw |
| 10:28 | <tobie> | annevk: that's a fair point |
| 10:29 | <annevk> | For implementers you really want to have thought about the threat model and mitigations ahead of time and design around that |
| 10:29 | <annevk> | I guess you could have a non-normative summary though |
| 10:29 | <tobie> | annevk: sure |
| 10:29 | <annevk> | I did that for Encoding iirc |
| 10:30 | tobie | looks |
| 12:01 | <annevk> | Someone pointed out that the color I use for links on my blog contrasts poorly with the background, scores a 2.5 (needs to be at least 4.5) |
| 12:01 | <annevk> | However, I can't find a single color that looks better and meets the criteria |
| 12:01 | <annevk> | Sigh |
| 12:02 | <jgraham> | You could stop using snot-green as the background colour? |
| 12:09 | <annevk> | jgraham: that's an even harder change |
| 12:11 | <Ms2ger> | jgraham, if your snot looks like that, I think you should go see a doctor |
| 12:31 | <annevk> | So it seems nothing in GitHub forces you to call the main branch "master" |
| 12:31 | <annevk> | Am I wrong or is that the case? |
| 12:31 | <Ms2ger> | I don't think it is |
| 12:32 | <Ms2ger> | https://github.com/user/repo/settings/branches allows you to change it |
| 13:36 | <smaug> | hmm, does blink support USVString in idl |
| 14:51 | <tobie> | annevk: it's just a convention. You can call it anything you want. You can even call it "head" if you want to shoot yourself in the foot. |
| 14:56 | <annevk> | tobie: I'd like to migrate away from "master", ideally without breaking all kinds of links |
| 14:56 | <annevk> | tobie: but "master" is some kind of implicit default |
| 15:00 | <tobie> | annevk: for the anecdote, Stackoverflow tells me this has been fixed in Git 1.8.5, see https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/RelNotes/1.8.5.txt#L289 |
| 15:01 | <tobie> | annevk: but that's irrelevant to your current concerns, though. |
| 15:02 | <tobie> | annevk: changing to "base" or "main" or whatnot is trivial |
| 15:02 | <tobie> | annevk: not breaking stuff much less so. |
| 15:02 | <tobie> | annevk: starting with all open PRs |
| 15:02 | <annevk> | The main thing we cannot break I think is links to whatwg/reponame/commit/commithash |
| 15:03 | <annevk> | Rebasing PRs seems doable |
| 15:04 | <tobie> | Well I don't see why you'd break whatwg/reponame/commit/commithash |
| 15:04 | <annevk> | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Appropriateness_of_usage has surprisingly little discussion on this thing btw |
| 15:05 | <tobie> | annevk: afaik, commits sit outside of branches (branxhes are just pointers to a last commit) |
| 15:06 | <tobie> | branches, even |
| 15:07 | <annevk> | tobie: I guess you just have to be careful that you don't accidentally refresh them |
| 15:07 | <tobie> | annevk: commits are immutable, so those urls won't change |
| 15:09 | <jgraham> | annevk: Is there a specific reason you want to migrate to something that will confuse new contributors? |
| 15:10 | <annevk> | jgraham: I'd like to avoid potentially offensive terminology |
| 15:10 | <tobie> | jgraham: there's actually little reason for confusion |
| 15:10 | <tobie> | jgraham: you'll be on the "base" branch instead of the "master" one |
| 15:10 | <jgraham> | tobie: Well if you read any git tutorial it will talk about origin/master |
| 15:10 | <annevk> | jgraham: That is, I hope that if we change this more contributors feel welcome |
| 15:10 | <jgraham> | Well known conventions have some value |
| 15:11 | <annevk> | But perhaps changing it here is not the right move and it should be driven by the Git community instead... |
| 15:11 | <tobie> | annevk: probably both |
| 15:11 | <tobie> | annevk: leading by example actually works :) |
| 15:12 | <jgraham> | I… am pretty skeptical this will accomplish anything except putting people off by being confusing |
| 15:13 | <annevk> | tobie: yeah, that's my going theory |
| 15:13 | <annevk> | jgraham: are people put off by gh-pages? |
| 15:14 | <jgraham> | annevk: I think so, yes. Enough that you can now publish master to github.io |
| 15:16 | <Ms2ger> | It does put me off |
| 15:20 | <tobie> | I'm a put off by gh-pages, but precisely because I could not change it, and it was GitHub-branded |
| 15:21 | <tobie> | annevk: people are going to be put off by"base" (or whatnot), not because it doesn't follow the convention... |
| 15:21 | <tobie> | but because it doesn't follow the convention in the hope of being more inclusive (or just less racist depending on how you look at it). |
| 15:22 | <tobie> | annevk: whereby "people" I mean "white males" who think SJW is an insult and PC a bad word |
| 15:22 | <jgraham> | tobie: Really? You are denying that there might be legitimate technical reasons to prefer to do what the vast majority of other repos do and branding anyone who disagrees racist? |
| 15:23 | <annevk> | it seems primary/replica has some precedant |
| 15:23 | <tobie> | jgraham: I haven't called anyone racist. I called a practice racist. |
| 15:23 | <annevk> | precedent even |
| 15:24 | <jgraham> | tobie: You totally did |
| 15:24 | <jgraham> | If you are looking for offence, I am pretty fucking offended |
| 15:25 | tobie | wonders why he quoted "white male" |
| 15:25 | <tobie> | jgraham: where? |
| 15:26 | <jgraham> | Honestly? You don't see how "people aren't going to dislike it because it's unconventional but because they hate inclusivity and/or are racist" is a valid interpretation of what you said? |
| 15:28 | <tobie> | jgraham: I don't and it's not. |
| 15:30 | <jgraham> | tobie: OK, well if you say so. But it's totally what I understood from the words you wrote and I have no idea what else you might have meant |
| 15:31 | <Ms2ger> | I read "there are people who will be offended, not because it doesn't follow convention, but because they don't like more inclusivity" |
| 15:32 | <tobie> | Ms2ger: that's not what I meant either. :) |
| 15:33 | <Ms2ger> | Then "there are people who will be offended, not just because it doesn't follow convention, but because they don't like deviating from the convention for more inclusivity"? |
| 15:34 | <annevk> | Well, people was also qualified |
| 15:34 | Ms2ger | should probably retreat from the rabbit hole |
| 15:36 | <annevk> | I think jgraham's concern that using "primary" might be confusing is valid. |
| 15:36 | <annevk> | Even so I still think doing it and having an explanation available would be the way to go. |
| 15:38 | <tobie> | That's better but: s/for more inclusivity/for something that appears to them as a lot of work, overly politically correct and not useful in practice/. |
| 15:39 | <annevk> | tobie: just as I thought we got out of the paraphrasing tobie rabbit hole |
| 15:39 | <caitp> | don't you think people (or white males who don't like political correctness) who get upset about using "base" instead of "master" might have too much time on their hands? |
| 15:39 | <tobie> | it's meta, now. |
| 15:40 | tantek | checks to see if there's any popcorn left |
| 15:40 | <tobie> | caitp: not for me to judge, but it's a great filter for assholes, so I'm all for it. |
| 15:41 | <tantek> | ^^^ good reasoning |
| 15:46 | <jgraham> | To be clear, the concern is not people who are offended by the use of a nonstandard term |
| 15:46 | <jgraham> | The concern is people who are further confused by not using standard conventions in a notoriously confusing tool |
| 15:47 | <caitp> | some people use "upstream" instead of "origin" and it isn't really that confusing |
| 15:48 | <tobie> | jgraham: right. I haven't seen people get confused by gh-pages either |
| 15:48 | <tobie> | caitp: they're sort of not the same thing. |
| 15:49 | <caitp> | they're not exactly the same, but it's similar |
| 15:50 | <jgraham> | tobie: Ms2ger literally just said he was. Plus github added the option to change it and they are not noted for doing lots of work if they aren't getting complaints from users. |
| 15:50 | <jgraham> | Anyway, I'm not sure why I'm still having this conversation |
| 15:51 | <Ms2ger> | tobie, not so much confused, I guess, but I always type "master" first when working on the webidl repo |
| 15:53 | <tobie> | Ms2ger: Git could have included a convetion similar to HEAD |
| 16:08 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: `bikeshed update` shouldn't ever fail; there's no reason it should unless Shepherd is inconsistent. |
| 16:09 | <TabAtkins> | I should really just bake Pygments into the repo, like I did with Requests. |
| 16:11 | <Domenic> | TabAtkins: as much as I am in general in favor of using package managers like pip, in this particular case it seems like baking it in might be better, yeah |
| 16:11 | <Domenic> | TabAtkins: or maybe making it part of bikeshed update |
| 16:11 | <Domenic> | or creating some new command that does bikeshed update + reset to tabatkins/master + pip update |
| 16:11 | <TabAtkins> | Shrinkwrapping for release is standard practice in many package managers. |
| 16:12 | <Domenic> | true |
| 16:12 | <Domenic> | for apps, of which bikeshed is definitely one |
| 16:12 | <Domenic> | I guess it's checking other packages into the repo that is a bit diststeful |
| 16:19 | <annevk> | botie: tell rniwa that https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/ has snapshots now (under "Commits:") |
| 16:19 | <botie> | will do |
| 16:21 | <TabAtkins> | Domenic: Yeah, if pip actually supported shrinkwrapping (node-style or whatever), I'd do that. But it doesn't, because all is chaos and pain in Python packages. So hey, check into the repo, who gives a shit. |
| 18:11 | <annevk> | https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2016-September/086450.html has some reasoning for why "master" on its own might be okay, fairly persuasive |
| 18:23 | <annevk> | I asked Twitter |
| 18:24 | <annevk> | (If anyone knows a better place for such questions, I'm listening.) |
| 18:52 | <TabAtkins> | Right, that's my current understanding too - "master" is fine, it's the "master/slave" naming dynamic that has Implications. |
| 18:54 | <tantek> | I'm more of a Depeche Mode fan myself |
| 19:54 | <smaug> | jsbell: ping |
| 19:54 | <jsbell> | smaug: hey there |
| 19:54 | <smaug> | https://github.com/WICG/entries-api/issues/13 |
| 19:55 | <smaug> | or am I just reading the spec wrong |
| 19:55 | <jsbell> | looking at it now |
| 19:55 | <smaug> | I'm trying to figure out what getParent should do |
| 19:55 | <smaug> | especially when one is calling it on root directory |
| 19:56 | <jsbell> | smaug: On a tangent, I plopped a bunch of manual tests in https://github.com/WICG/entries-api/blob/gh-pages/tests/directoryentry-manual.html |
| 19:56 | <jsbell> | need to split that up/tidy it up |
| 19:56 | <jsbell> | (and move to wpt, of course) |
| 19:57 | <smaug> | great |
| 19:57 | <jsbell> | smaug: the input to evaluate path is always an absolute path |
| 19:57 | <jsbell> | i.e. starts with / |
| 19:57 | <jsbell> | so you can't pass just .. |
| 19:58 | <jsbell> | "evaluate a path" could have a better name. PRs welcome. ;-) |
| 19:58 | <jsbell> | "resolve a relative path" handles relative paths |
| 19:59 | <smaug> | jsbell: aha, so .. from root returns root |
| 19:59 | <smaug> | adslfkj |
| 19:59 | <jsbell> | yes |
| 19:59 | <smaug> | from root getParent returns root itself |
| 19:59 | <jsbell> | which matches chrome's behavior |
| 19:59 | <smaug> | k |
| 20:03 | <smaug> | jsbell: thanks |
| 20:34 | <botie> | rniwa, at 2016-11-02 16:19 UTC, annevk said: https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/ has snapshots now (under "Commits:") |
| 20:34 | <rniwa> | annevk: nice! |
| 20:56 | <terinjokes> | Domenic: what do i need to do for snapshots? |
| 20:56 | <terinjokes> | :D |
| 20:57 | <Domenic> | terinjokes: :) process is mostly in https://github.com/whatwg/dom/pull/350, I guess you'd need access to the servers for the hard parts. You want it? I'll set it up. |
| 20:57 | <Domenic> | terinjokes: ehhhh I'll take it back, you do most of the work, I'll put the key on the server |
| 20:57 | <terinjokes> | is it a different server than the one you already gave travis push access to? |
| 20:57 | <Domenic> | oh right! |
| 20:57 | <Domenic> | console is using modern stuff |
| 20:58 | <Domenic> | yeah so that part's already taken care of |
| 20:59 | <Domenic> | Just gotta mash up my deploy.sh with robertkowalski's makefile I guess |
| 21:00 | <terinjokes> | cool, i'll take a look tonight after work |
| 21:01 | <terinjokes> | a brief glance at the PR you did for dom makes sense |
| 21:18 | <Domenic> | terinjokes: also see https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/363 for the things we missed |
| 22:43 | <robertkowalski> | hey Domenic terinjokes :) i'm in seville right now. you need my help? have a few hours this week |
| 22:49 | <Domenic> | robertkowalski: I think we're good :). Enjoy Seville! |
| 22:50 | <robertkowalski> | thank you! great tweets today btw :) |
| 23:24 | <rniwa> | Domenic: maybe you can merge https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/4118 ? |
| 23:28 | <Domenic> | rniwa: looks good. I love the case of inserting a child element into an option and then using HTMLOptionsCollection.prototype.add ^_^ |
| 23:29 | <rniwa> | Domenic: yeah |
| 23:31 | <rniwa> | Domenic: thanks! |
| 23:43 | <rniwa> | Domenic: another one if you're still here: https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/4163 |
| 23:48 | <Domenic> | rniwa: reviewing... |
| 23:50 | <rniwa> | Domenic: and the last one: https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/4164 |