Skip to content

Meeting 2016 01 04

Jump to bottom
Josh Matthews edited this page Jan 5, 2016 · 1 revision

Servo Meeting 2016-01-04

Vidyo meeting - https://v.mozilla.com/flex.html?roomdirect.html&key=aiRAKuP7pjdJ (Servo room):

  • Early (Monday, 12PM US Central) meeting
  • *** Late (Monday, 6PM US Central) meeting

Reminder: use http://statusupdates.dev.mozaws.net/ https://github.com/servo/servo/wiki/Roadmap (to inform goals)

Agenda items

  • thesis topic brainstorming mailing list thread (jdm)
  • resolve the frequent questions about autoheader/automake (jdm)
  • bholley is refactoring stuff!
  • nox trying to smup

postponed to next early meeting

  • CI status (jack)

Attending

  • gw, jack, jdm, bholley, brson, frewsxcv, mbrubeck, ajeffrey, azita, edunham, nox

Last week

Thesis topics

  • jdm: I sent a message to the dev-servo list several days ago. There's a student interested in topics for a Master's thesis. See the email for requirements. I'd like help brainstorming ideas that would involve contributing in some way to Servo. Read the email, think about it, respond on the list.
  • jack: We can use these ideas for intern project ideas too. Is there a deadline for the Master's student?
  • jdm: I'll find out.
  • jack: For intern projects, we have until May.

Automake

  • jdm: There was an issue report last month: https://github.com/servo/servo/issues/8890
  • jdm: The new harfbuzz bindings sometimes complain about missing automake. People have been hitting this repeatedly.
  • jack: Everything has been generated with pre-configured. Timestamps don't quite match post-git-checkout, so we end up with the configure script trying to regenerated autotools cruft, even though it's technically not necessary. We can require that automake is installed, but that could hurt us on windows, and there will be lots of changed files when making PRs. It sounds like there's no good solution in Gecko; they make everyone run automake. If so, we should delete all generated things from repos.
  • mbrubeck: https://github.com/servo/rust-harfbuzz/issues/54 . Partly my fault for introducing this. This is the conflict between git checkout timestamps and make dependency checking. There's a touch command in .travis.yml that can fix this, but I didn't put it in the build script because that would rebuild needlessly. If we get the logic right we should be able to put this in the build script or makefile to avoid having the files be marked as needing rebuilding.
  • jack: In the interim, let's add automake to the requirements. Long term, we should delete Makefile.in etc. so people don't make PRs that include the generated files due to different versions of automake, and the files getting replaced constantly. Maybe we could leave them checked in and mark them gitignored?
  • jdm: There's a PR open to add automake to the prereqs in the documentation, so short-term, we'll merge that (https://github.com/servo/servo/pull/9128).
  • jack: Watch out when reviewing harfbuzz PRs that generated files aren't being checked in. We already require some autotools for spidermonkey.

Refactorings

  • bholley: I'm hoisting a lot of style code into the style crate (out of layout, etc.) to make the style crate easier to use independently. SimonSapin and pcwalton have been reviewing it. It's moving fast, just working through some lifetime issues. Long-term, the parallel traversal stuff and all the non-layout-specific DOM traits will live in components/style, and be extended with layout-specific code in components/layout.
  • bholley: The next thing after I finish the refactoring will be making a new build target. Whom should I ask about the build system?
  • jack: Mostly me and larsberg. A number of people have some experience with it. I'll be the main contact.

SpiderMonkey update

  • jack: Have we decided not to wait for till's SpiderMonkey changes?
  • jdm: Last I heard was that till is not against it.
  • nox: I generated new bindings against SM46 but some templates are weirdly transformed and I need mwu, nothing interesting for the meeting

Meetings

  • jack: We're going to be looking for a new late meeting time, and that means we'll be moving the early time as well, to keep both on the same day. Too many people have conflicts on Monday.

Code review for prototypes

  • ajeffrey: If my wasm work is desirable for moving into servo/ proper, what's the process for doing?
  • jack: There's pcwalton/gaol, and not much reason to move it.
  • mbrubeck: What we've done before is file an issue saying "review this crate". Reviewers file issues for things they find, and link them to the meta issue.
  • ajeffrey: So we're ok with just doing large code reviews in the future?
  • jack: Yes. We should probably get better at that, but there's a tradeoff with allowing things to experiment quickly. Keep documentation current so it's easier to follow to enable easier reviews.
Clone this wiki locally