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 >>> >>
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2020 12:18:00 UTC