If I'm reading the Chromium Dashboard schedule <https://chromiumdash.appspot.com/schedule> correctly, M97 stable will be released early January, so after the holiday season. It seems worthwhile to try and ship this at that point (but not in M96).
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 4:12 AM Wanming Lin <wanming....@intel.com> wrote: > Thank you all for your great support! > > There's no more outstanding questions or bugs in my mind that might block > shipping this, but I need to get 3 LGTMs from you to process the final ship. > Is that possible we could cherry-pick it to M96? Otherwise we have to > wait about 4 months for M98 stable, and M96 stable release at Nov 16, 2021, > we may have some latency for bug reports. But it's up to your opinions. :) > > > Thanks, > Wanming > On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 9:54:59 PM UTC+8 mike...@chromium.org > wrote: > >> It does seem worth trying to ship this given the lack of (known) bugs, >> but maybe we should consider waiting until M98 to avoid sites needing to >> deploy fixes during the holiday season, assuming a few weeks of latency >> for bug reports. >> >> On 10/13/21 9:18 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: >> > Thanks for explaining this, Rakina, I definitely didn't get the whole >> > context on my first pass. >> > >> > In particular the fact that current behavior matches Firefox is a >> > strong reason to not make any further changes. >> > >> > Wanming, are you aware of any other outstanding questions or bugs that >> > might crop up if we attempt to ship this? >> > >> > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 11:14 AM Rakina Zata Amni <rak...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >> I had a quick chat with Philip about whether we want to fix >> crbug.com/1209717 or not, and I think we don't need to fix that bug for >> shipping this. >> >> In the bug, the code expected a same-document history navigation (and >> its scroll restoration) would happen synchronously, so any scroll changes >> that happen after the navigation was initiated won't be overwritten by the >> history scroll restore. Because all history navigation in Chrome needs to >> go through the browser process, the same-document history navigation is >> actually asynchronous, and so the history scroll restoration is also >> asynchronous. Looks like this was fast enough before that the history >> scroll restoration might happen before code with clamping of setTimeout, >> but now that the clamping is being removed it's not fast enough, so we got >> that regression. >> >> >> >> That bug was derived from crbug.com/1205285, which is noted as having >> been fixed by Wikipedia since it's showing a similar behavior on Firefox >> with Fission. The fix itself is very simple: they just needed to set >> history.scrollRestoration to "manual". As the motivating bug has been fixed >> with a simple fix, and asynchronous same-document history navigation has >> been in Chrome for a while (and is also what Firefox is doing), I think we >> don't need to reland/make the full fix for crbug.com/1209717. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 11:16 PM Philip Jägenstedt < >> foo...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Wanming, >> >>> >> >>> If the reason for reverting no longer applies, then trying to reland >> the fix sounds like a reasonable next step. If that is done and it sticks >> this time, it seems to me we might be ready for a final Intent to Ship for >> this. At least I don't know what more could be done to vet the change >> before trying to let it reach stable. >> >>> >> >>> Best regards, >> >>> Philip >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 10:14 AM Wanming Lin <wanmi...@intel.com> >> wrote: >> >>>> Hi all, >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks Philip's bridge, I've been connected with the release >> managers and completed the new round of origin trial on M95 (we reached an >> agreement on reverting the change after the first M95 Beta release itself). >> During this period, I didn't receive any relevant bugs. >> >>>> >> >>>> But unfortunately, after the origin trial, the fix for the previous >> block issue #1209717 was reverted due to regression at issue #1254867, >> @rakina is considering that maybe we can do nothing here because per >> crbug.com/1205285#c16, the original bug on Wikipedia has been fixed on >> Wikipedia's side. > > Do I understand correctly and the only relationship between this change and the scroll restoration issue is that the bug is revealed when a 0 timeout is present? >> >>>> >> >>>> So we are looking forward your feedbacks, on both the bug of >> #1209717 and what's the next step to move forward this intent-to-ship. Many >> thanks in advance! >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks, >> >>>> >> >>>> Wanming >> >>>> >> >>>> On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 8:32:59 PM UTC+8 Philip Jägenstedt >> wrote: >> >>>>> Hi Wanming, I'll put you in touch with our release managers so that >> they're aware of this happening. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 5:38 PM Chris Harrelson < >> chri...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>>>>> Sounds good to me. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 7:07 PM Wanming Lin <wanmi...@intel.com> >> wrote: >> >>>>>>> Hi all, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> The CL has been relanded and following's the new original plan: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Land the change to M95 - Done >> >>>>>>> Allow the change to reach M95 beta (promoted Sep 23) >> >>>>>>> Revert it on the M95 branch well before the stable cut/release >> (Cut Oct 12) >> >>>>>>> Get back to this thread with test reports on M95 beta >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Does that sound good to you? Looks like Philip is still on >> vacation, could someone help notice the release managers about this plan? >> Or just help me reach out the release managers. Many thanks! >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>>>> Wanming >> >>>>>>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 3:13:06 AM UTC+8 Chris Harrelson >> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 9:28 PM Wanming Lin <wanmi...@intel.com> >> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> Hi Chris, Daniel and all, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> The blocker issue >> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1209717 has been >> fixed now, and per above performance improvement @verwaest reported, can we >> start testing on Beta again? >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Sure, go ahead and experiment on canary/dev/beta, and then come >> back to us with any new findings. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 1:59:25 AM UTC+8 >> 08629...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> Re:[blink-dev] Ineng to Ship:Remove clamping of set Up >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> BGODL209B013 >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> ในวันที่ ศ. 11 มิ.ย. 2021 09:13 Wanming Lin < >> wanmi...@intel.com> เขียนว่า: >> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> @verwaest reported at the revert CL that this change would >> improve Speedometer2 by 5-6% on the Apple M1 and ~3% on our win10 perf >> bots. Thanks @verwaest! >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> This is really a good improvement and a new impetus for us to >> push this optimization forward. One block at present is the navigation >> scheduling issue we reported: >> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1209717, which has >> been open for a while and no new updates. Could someone help to push it? >> Thanks! >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, is there other workaround solution to push the >> optimization forward? >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 17, 2021 at 3:17:48 PM UTC+8 Wanming Lin >> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Chris and Daniel, sorry I didn't explain clearly for >> the user reported issue, which is actually a chrome bug, even with 1ms >> clamp, this issue may still happen in some other scenarios, I've created a >> separated bug and explained the story at >> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1209717. PTAL, >> thanks! >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's worth an another intent once this bug be >> solved. As it turns out, 1ms' clamp covers up some real chrome bugs. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 3:44:33 AM UTC+8 Daniel Bratell >> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As Chris said, it's good that you managed to identify some >> problematic areas during the beta phase. Of course it would have been more >> pleasant with no problems at all, but this was always a risky change. >> Hopefully you can use these bug reports to figure out a version of this >> change that doesn't cause those problems. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> From a process point of view we will consider this intent >> "on hold" until you think it is ready to try again. At such a time, just >> return to this thread (or file a new intent if you think that would be >> cleaner). >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> /Daniel >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-05-13 19:55, Chris Harrelson wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for these data points. Are these the only bugs that >> were filed? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd say these bugs are exactly the kind of interop problems >> we should be worried about with this intent. Yes it's true that those sites >> shouldn't depend on these relative timings, and it's technically a site bug >> if so, but if it is widespread enough it still represents a big enough >> problem that it would block shipping this change in behavior. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 1:24 AM Wanming Lin < >> wanmi...@intel.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you Philip! We actually received some regression >> bugs during initial trial, including several pinpoint performance >> regressions and one user reported scheduling issue. But we finally identify >> they are all caused by other issues after investigation. Following's the >> bug summary: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Pinpoint regressions: >> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1179810 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We identified the problem is with the perf story itself. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. en.wikipedia.org : User reports page is scrolled to >> the top after closing overlay: >> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1205285 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This should be an navigation scheduling issue. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 3:40:33 PM UTC+8 Philip >> Jägenstedt wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Wanming, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This change has now been on beta for a time, and the >> revert on M91 is in progress. Can you summarize what you learned from bug >> reports coming in? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philip >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 5:00 AM Wanming Lin < >> wanmi...@intel.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does that sound right to you? If so I can ask the >> release managers about this plan. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, that sounds good! Thank you for your support! >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 6:03:04 PM UTC+8 Philip >> Jägenstedt wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Wanming, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the original timeline here won't work since >> your CL was reverted and relanded so many times, and I think I also made a >> mistake with the branching, since a change landed after the M90 branch >> point would never be in the M90 beta... >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To bake in the the M91 beta, what we need to do is: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Land the change soon before the M91 branch point, which >> the latest reland did >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Allow the change to reach M91 beta (promoted Apr 22) >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Revert it on the M91 branch well before the stable >> cut/release, let's say May 4 at the latest >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly how much exposure on the beta channel that will >> give depends on beta release dates, but it ought to be at least a week. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does that sound right to you? If so I can ask the >> release managers about this plan. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philip >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 4:27 AM Wanming Lin < >> wanmi...@intel.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All, the CL has been landed at >> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2730350, sorry >> for a bit delay due to another reverting during the period. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philip, could you help to email the release engineers >> about this change? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 6:14:15 AM UTC+8 >> Philip Jägenstedt wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good idea, Ian, I'll go ahead and do that. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 5:48 PM Ian Kilpatrick < >> ikilp...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philip - if you could also email the release >> engineers directly about this change - that likely would be pertinent (just >> so this is on their radar in case things go wrong, and if a revert in Beta >> is needed). >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ian >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 1:28 AM Philip Jägenstedt < >> foo...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Wanming, I'll review on the CL. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you check back in this thread on the week of >> March 22, so that there will be enough time to discuss before the branch >> point? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 3:07 AM Wanming Lin < >> wanmi...@intel.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philip, thanks for your comments! I've submitted >> the reland CL at >> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2636507/, >> please take a look. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 6, 2021 at 12:01:24 AM UTC+8 >> Philip Jägenstedt wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Wanming, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The most straightforward way to test this on beta >> (and canary before that) would be to land the code right after the M90 >> branch point (Feb 25) and then revert it some time well ahead of the M91 >> branch point (Apr 8). The beta promotion should be around Mar 11, so you >> should be able to get at least a few weeks on beta with this method. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, even if the beta baking does not reveal >> any issues, breakage due to this can be hard to understand, and could be in >> code (libraries) that aren't easy to update. It would be prudent to make >> this a finch-controlled experiment, to avoid a potential urgent revert in a >> point release. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LGTM3 to trying this on beta with whichever >> method you prefer at the moment. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philip >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 3:34 AM Wanming Lin < >> wanmi...@intel.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Alex, Chris, very glad to see this great >> progress! >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have my LGTM1 to flag this on for Beta for >> one release, and as we get evidence back from that, we'd ask you to report >> it here. On the basis of that update, we'll then potentially approve a >> stable launch. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since I'm new to intent-to-ship process, could >> you please guide me or provide BKMs on how to flag this on for Beta for one >> release, and what kinds of testing should be covered? Any chromium program >> could help test and evaluate the impact? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides, I am thinking of leveraging >> chrome://histograms/ to count the use of setTimeout(..., 0) from some hot >> websites, then we can do some basic testing to check if there's obvious >> regression. Does it make sense? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wanming >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 5, 2021 at 4:16:37 AM UTC+8 >> Chris Harrelson wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LGTM2 for testing on beta and coming back to >> the API owners with the results. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 12:15 PM Alex Russell < >> sligh...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the clarification, Geoffery. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wanming: we discussed this again at today's >> API OWNERS meeting and, given what Mike and Ben noted here, we'd like to >> see this bake for a while on Beta to shake out any potential compat issues. >> You have my LGTM1 to flag this on for Beta for one release, and as we get >> evidence back from that, we'd ask you to report it here. On the basis of >> that update, we'll then potentially approve a stable launch. Does that >> sound good to you? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if you have any more data as to why this >> change improves things for users and developers, that would also be >> helpful. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, February 1, 2021 at 12:01:42 PM >> UTC-8 geoffrey garen wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note: >> http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/17156/webkit is not the change that >> added the minimum timeout clamp. r17156 *reduced* a pre-existing 10ms clamp >> to 1ms. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 29, 2021 at 7:22:28 AM >> UTC-8 wande...@chromium.org wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also note that if you nest setTimeout(..., >> 0) enough (5 times?) then you start getting 4ms clamping anyway. So this is >> really about the first 4 or so setTimeout(..., 0) calls in a chain. I don't >> think this intent is removing the 4ms clamping for nested timeouts. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 10:20 AM Ben Kelly < >> wande...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its possible folks are using setTimeout(.., >> 0) as a setImmediate() replacement which would result in high numbers. But >> that use case would not be adversely impacted by removing this clamping. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 4:01 AM Yoav Weiss < >> yo...@yoav.ws> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 9:54 AM Wanming >> Lin <wanmi...@intel.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks all for your comments! I've >> created a WebKit issue at: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=221124 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main motivation of this >> intent-to-ship is to correct the scheduling and reduce potential >> performance impact. We didn't find impact on live sites with/without 1ms >> clamp maybe they‘ve already avoided the usage of setTimeout(..., 0) since >> compatible risk is really existed. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have numbers on how often >> `setTimout(... ,0)` is used? (use counters, HTTPArchive, cluster telemetry, >> etc) >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about setInterval? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since remove 1ms clamp exits risk, we'd >> like to change setTimeout at first and base on discussion result to see if >> it's reasonable, if yes, we can apply it at setInterval as next step. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 29, 2021 at 6:14:07 AM >> UTC+8 Mike Taylor wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Howdy, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In general, I think if Firefox has been >> able to ship this behavior it's >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely web-compatible (modulo different >> code paths being served behind >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UA sniffing). >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There have been subtle race-y JS timing >> bug differences between sites in >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Firefox and Chrome that my old team (at >> Mozilla) looked at, but >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unfortunately I don't have any links to >> back that up. So there is some >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> risk that sites are (unintentionally) >> relying on the old behavior. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, aligning with Firefox (and >> the HTML standard) on this seems >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good -- more so if WebKit is willing to >> do so as well. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A few questions: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about setInterval? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will setTimeout and setInterval be >> consistent wrt clamping after this >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed change? (see also >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1646799#c0) >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/21 2:28 PM, Alex Russell wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +mike taylor who may have insight into >> the potential compat risks, given >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the different behavior between Gecko >> and WebKit/Blink. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 28, 2021 at >> 4:53:47 AM UTC-8 Manuel Rego wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 27/01/2021 03:01, Lin, Wanming >> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Safari: 1ms clamp (WebKit's clamp at >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/main/Source/WebCore/page/DOMTimer.cpp#L384 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> < >> https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/main/Source/WebCore/page/DOMTimer.cpp#L384> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> < >> https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/main/Source/WebCore/page/DOMTimer.cpp#L384 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> < >> https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/main/Source/WebCore/page/DOMTimer.cpp#L384>>) >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have we checked with WebKit if they >> have any plans to change this or >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at some point? Is there a WebKit bug >> report or something? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can ask for signals in >> webkit-dev, see >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bit.ly/blink-signals < >> https://bit.ly/blink-signals> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bye, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rego >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you >> are subscribed to the Google >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop >> receiving emails from it, send >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:blink-dev+...@chromium.org>. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web >> visit >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/025bd7a7-6be1-4b77-9c3a-32bb6b295812n%40chromium.org >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> < >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/025bd7a7-6be1-4b77-9c3a-32bb6b295812n%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are >> subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop >> receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/5c1d6691-1ccd-4451-a491-56990ecc695fn%40chromium.org. >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are >> subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop >> receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CACj%3DBEhAvLduQ6XXA-Vm-8%3DTM9L-d5q1_h-DrvrKLHg8NBvxEQ%40mail.gmail.com. >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are >> subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop >> receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/095fc193-27e5-4a7c-b816-edbab7eb176cn%40chromium.org. >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are >> subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving >> emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAARdPYfU0La%3D3Fpd%3DHBVQ2phHuvMSozpOsXqt-NR-mtWepRJPQ%40mail.gmail.com. >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to >> the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >> from it, send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/2869319d-e852-4f3b-8471-611f6ae7c9b4n%40chromium.org. >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >> Google Groups "blink-dev" group. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >> from it, send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOMQ%2Bw8JUEZDbfNsmXJWhcz_N7zcRwzoips2r_DzMEqhctwr1g%40mail.gmail.com. >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >> Google Groups "blink-dev" group. >> >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >> it, send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/b155d685-4b7e-498b-8e8a-1e9c95d4195an%40chromium.org. >> >> >>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >> Google Groups "blink-dev" group. >> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >> it, send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/f2f1d2cf-0b9b-4ed4-ac0e-4f7d9a20e4c1n%40chromium.org. >> >> >>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >> Google Groups "blink-dev" group. >> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >> send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >> >>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/cb9aacdf-dc28-42b0-90cd-6c0faec080ffn%40chromium.org. >> >> >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "blink-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/5c0e9914-2d52-4e08-b041-c9ee4d5042cdn%40chromium.org > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/5c0e9914-2d52-4e08-b041-c9ee4d5042cdn%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfVtUZ63ZiiCLcFCYD2%2BnpOrt3g0anJQ3R-to0x%3DbNG_9A%40mail.gmail.com.
