Re: Porting wptserve handlers to Python 3: next steps / code review

I can confirm I volunteer to review!

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 8:54 PM Josh Matthews <josh@joshmatthews.net> wrote:

> I've got some experience porting the eventsource handlers (although I
> haven't submitted that PR yet due to a couple unfinished tricky handlers),
> so I can review PRs as well.
>
> Cheers,
> Josh
>
> On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 13:03, Stephen Mcgruer <smcgruer@chromium.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for sending this email Robert; I'm excited to see us keep the ball
>> rolling on Python 3 support.
>>
>> > In addition, we'd really appreciate a few more people to sign up for
>> reviewing these changes to share the workload. Anyone volunteering?
>>
>> I'm happy to review PRs, albeit with no specific prior knowledge.
>> +foolip, who volunteered to review as well.
>>
>> That'd bring us to 5 reviewers assuming jgraham and annevk are willing to
>> review; do you think that is enough Robert?
>>
>> On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 18:19, Robert Ma <robertma@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> We're getting close to finalizing the plan for migrating close to 500
>>> wptserve handlers we have in WPT. Now we have a few concrete steps to take:
>>>
>>> 1. Regarding the trial PR
>>> <https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/23363>, James, Anne and
>>> others who'd like to take a look, do you have any other comments on this
>>> PR, especially high-level ones about the general approach? This would
>>> unblock the following steps and we can address small issues in parallel.
>>> 2. If we agree this approach is what we wanted by having consistent and
>>> explicit semantics across Python 2 and 3, I'll update the RFC
>>> <https://github.com/web-platform-tests/rfcs/pull/49> (essentially
>>> swapping the currently "recommended" and "alternative" approaches and
>>> filling in some more concrete guidelines), and kick off a new round of RFC
>>> process (hopefully relatively quick since many people are already on board
>>> with the new approach).
>>> 3. Meanwhile, Ziran can start porting more handlers (we can wait until
>>> the RFC is accepted to actually merge the PRs). We have hundreds of
>>> handlers and we should expect lots of PRs. Reviewing them is a critical
>>> task, too. Since we now have concrete guidelines and changes will be
>>> largely mechanical, I'm proposing to adopt the "LGTM % nits" convention
>>> widely used in Chromium: if a PR largely looks good but has some minor
>>> issues, approve the PR with comments. In addition, we'd really appreciate a
>>> few more people to sign up for reviewing these changes to share the
>>> workload. Anyone volunteering?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Robert
>>>
>>