Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 31 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Revert "Remove duplicated fonts and put them under /fonts/ (#9718)" #9940
requested review from
Mar 9, 2018
This is not OK. The CSSWG test infrastructure may be quirky / not to your taste, but it works, and we're sharing this repo. Breaking it and letting other people deal with the fallout is not OK.
Reverting a single commit is much cheaper than requiring people to rewrite software that has worked for years.
Maybe we should replace the CSSWG test infrastructure. Maybe we should modernize it. But we haven't done that yet, so for now, we need this commit reverted.
At this point I've added an alias to serve the wpt fonts directory from the root of test.csswg.org (in the same manner as we serve /resources), so this revert isn't necessary to get the built test suites and test harness working again.
This may be a reasonable long-term fix for this particular issue, but it needs some more consideration. We also need a better path forward for coordinating and testing these kinds of changes in the future.
Reverting when things are broken by accident is pretty much the default, see these in the past 6 months:
I don't know exactly how the CSS build system is used, by given how fast @plinss noticed it sure seems like it's an important part of the workflow. Even though it touches lots of files, I believe this revert should have been done ASAP. It's already been imported into Blink with no trouble, but large changes tend to be more trouble, so spreading them out over time is no fun.
@plinss, is this revert still required to get everything back into shape? I would like to merge the revert, and @jgraham said on IRC "I don't mind reverting this", so I think that's what we should do.
If I get it right this revert is no longer needed, so we can close this PR. Do you agree?
BTW, I also said I didn't have problems with the revert and I'm sorry for creating all this mess.
@foolip, as far as I know the current fix is enough to get things working again. The "needs some more consideration" just means I need to think if this is the best way to keep things working long-term (and maybe we need a generic system for paths to common files so we don't have to add these kinds of aliases over and over).
If it's just that set of 5 then fine, I can add the others as aliases to the csswg test server. All I had in mind was something like if new shared-resource directories get added that happens under
@foolip it would add a lot of extra complexity versus what we have now (we'd have to extract URLs to check, which especially in
@foolip We literally just do