[webkit-dev] Announcing WebKit2

Maciej Stachowiak mjs at apple.com
Fri Apr 9 11:11:33 PDT 2010

On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:14 AM, Adam Treat wrote:

> On Friday 09 April 2010 06:24:51 am Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> Given what proportion of overall maintenance work on WebKit I done by
>> Apple, I don't think anyone is entitled to veto us adding a new API
> Whaa?  Who is talking about veto of Apple's work?  Rather, I am  
> suggesting
> that it would have been helpful if people in the broader community  
> had a
> chance to review and discuss the patches before they were summarily  
> landed.
> To be clear, I have not had a chance to review the patches (I'm  
> actually
> pretty excited by the ideas and I've no doubt the work is technically
> excellent given the people involved) and see what is going on before  
> they were
> pushed into the tree.  It just would have been nice to give the  
> *community*
> more of a heads up and a chance to have a look and offer opinions.   
> This isn't
> about 'Apple' and 'veto' so much as it is about a significant new  
> piece of tech
> being added to WebKit without going through the common procedure  
> where a bug
> is opened a patch is attached webkit-dev is notified and people have  
> a chance
> to discuss and poke a little.

There were in fact bugs opened with patches attached, and webkit-dev  
was notified before any of the patches were committed afaik. However,  
the "new piece of tech" really is just a new API layer for the Mac and  
Win ports. We are interested in other people being able to reuse this  
technology, but fundamentally, this is an extension of our existing  

> It just felt a little rushed especially so that the new stuff is  
> being landed
> with style errors.  I normally wouldn't quibble with style issues,  
> but others
> have and new ports have been required to fix any and all styling  
> issues before
> landing.

Agree, it was not good to commit with style errors and we should try  
to fix them promptly.

>> layer. I also recall that when the Chromium API layer was added, no
>> one asked permission, you just let us know that it was coming. Which
>> is fine - API layers are pretty low cost, and I hope no one would
>> argue against a major contributor including theirs. What's more, this
>> is really a parallel version of existing well-maintained API  
>> layers. I
>> do not like the implication that Apple should have to ask permission
>> for what we do with the WebKit API on Mac OS X. We do not ask the Qt
>> or Gtk developers to explain all their API choices.
> Again, I think it'd be good to get away from 'Apple' vs 'Others'.  The
> community as a whole has some fairly common procedures for landing  
> large
> changes like this.  This just felt a bit rushed.  And no doubt I was  
> a bit
> taken by the name 'WebKit2'.

It was in retrospect not a good choice of name. We hoped it would be a  
very boring choice. Think of it as WebKit/mac/async/ or something and  
see if you might feel differently.


More information about the webkit-dev mailing list