[130e13a]

> and remains nameless

WebKit is open-source, so it is actually one of the few Apple projects where the developers do not not remain nameless (the other big one being Swift).

> the black hole that's called Radar

IIRC WebKit has its own bug tracker, hence why you get better response times. Radar itself is still a terrible and demoralizing experience (from a developer point-of-view)

[lapcat]

> IIRC WebKit has its own bug tracker, hence why you get better response times. Radar itself is still a terrible and demoralizing experience (from a developer point-of-view)

The funny thing though is that Apple still sends WebKit bugs into Radar to work on them:

https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=232939#c6

[olliej]

Webkit bugs do not get transferred to radar to be worked on. Assuming the bug is actually in webkit (eg not a bug in the safari app or an underlying system framework), all the work happens in the public bug database. Code review, patch dev, etc for webkit occurs in bugzilla.

There are many reasons for linking bugzilla bugs to radar, but the big ones are scheduling, other project dependencies inside Apple, security reports (so that reporters can be mentioned in release notes, etc).

The important thing is that the b.w.o->radar cross referencing is not for development specifically.

[lapcat]

> all the work happens in the public bug database. Code review, patch dev, etc for webkit occurs in bugzilla.

What about discussion?

Do you claim there is no private discussion among Apple engineers about WebKit bugs that have been put "InRadar"?

I see a lot of WebKit bugs that have no discussion whatsoever and just seem to arrive ex nihilo from Radar. You wonder what the reasoning or explanation is for a certain code change, and you'll find absolutely nothing about it in the Bugzilla.

[madeofpalk]

> Do you claim there is no private discussion among Apple engineers about WebKit bugs that have been put "InRadar"?

Open source bugs will have private/non-public conversations (whether it's in person, or on slack, or on a seperate issue tracker) all the time. That's not abnormal or all that damning.

[olliej]

> What about discussion?

Is achieved by talking among each other, or simply by knowing how to fix/implement the feature (not every bug requires any discussion at all). Either in person (which would be inherently "private" as you say), or irc historically - I'm unsure whether irc is still significant as I recall free node dying off or something a few years back?

> Do you claim there is no private discussion among Apple engineers about WebKit bugs that have been put "InRadar"?

No, I'm saying your claim that "The funny thing though is that Apple still sends WebKit bugs into Radar to work on them:" is nonsense. The reason that bugs are cloned to radar is so that they can be tracked for releases. I think you have decided that any time you don't see discussion in b.w.o it means discussion there must be discussion in radar, and that's false. The reality is that most bug fix/feature implementation doesn't require discussion during development, actual recorded discussion happens during review as that systematically results in recording the exchanges.

> I see a lot of WebKit bugs that have no discussion whatsoever and just seem to arrive ex nihilo from Radar.

Again, I think you grossly overestimate the amount of recorded "discussion" that goes with a bug.

> You wonder what the reasoning or explanation is for a certain code change, and you'll find absolutely nothing about it in the Bugzilla.

For many there's not anything in radar either, because many (most?) bugs you see are created to track reviewing the change, and don't exist before the review process. The lack of explanation is typically because the engineers working on changes have the context for why a change is needed, so don't include an explanation.

[lapcat]

> I recall free node dying off or something a few years back?

Yeah, a kind of hostile takeover occurred, which the IRC community did not appreciate.

> Again, I think you grossly overestimate the amount of recorded "discussion" that goes with a bug.

Perhaps so. Seems a bit odd to me though. And a bit lonely :-)

> The lack of explanation is typically because the engineers working on changes have the context for why a change is needed, so don't include an explanation.

Well, I think it's worth noting that this is not very helpful to outsiders who are looking at and working with the code of an open source project.

Even in my closed source self owned projects, I like to provide useful context to my future self. ;-)

[olliej]

> Perhaps so. Seems a bit odd to me though. And a bit lonely :-)

People communicate in IRC (or a public slack now based on another comment?), in person, or in email. So when needed communication happens, it's just generally back and forth commentary in a bug is not a particularly good or efficient way to discuss implementation of bug fixes, features, etc.

> Well, I think it's worth noting that this is not very helpful to outsiders who are looking at and working with the code of an open source project.

Because it's a bug tracker being used to track bug fixes, not a tool for communicating with arbitrary people not involved in the project? I don't mean to be glib, but for WK at least that's just not what the bug trackers are used for.

> Even in my closed source self owned projects, I like to provide useful context to my future self.

In the bug report or in the code? Generally IME when code does things that are odd the explanation of that oddness is in the code (assuming not self explanatory) not the bug tracker.

It also depends on the bug itself, bug fixes you'd normally be able to see why a change was made (if not obvious from the title/description) is the attached test cases.

[saagarjha]

> The lack of explanation is typically because the engineers working on changes have the context for why a change is needed, so don't include an explanation.

Part of which is because the engineers are working on an unreleased feature that they’d like to put up “quietly”.

[marcellus23]

That isn’t surprising. Even if the work is being done publicly, it still needs to be tracked and project-managed internally by the team.

[lapcat]

> Even if the work is being done publicly, it still needs to be tracked and project-managed internally by the team.

bugs.webkit.org is literally a bug tracker.

The only relevant difference between Radar and WebKit Bugzilla is private vs. public.

[marcellus23]

> The only relevant difference between Radar and WebKit Bugzilla is private vs. public.

No, this is not true. Radar is not just "a bug tracker" — it is a very powerful project management tool, custom-built over several decades for the way Apple works, with integrations into other internal tools and processes.

It should be obvious why Apple wants to track work being done on Webkit using the same tool it uses to track work being done on every other project at the company.

[mproud]

I know a story of a person who submitted a Radar ticket for an engineer to go get a haircut.

They closed the ticket a few days later with a picture showing the issue resolved.

[saagarjha]

Snakes on a Radar is always a fun list to peruse.

[lapcat]

Last time I saw Radar, and its source code, which was admittedly over a decade ago, it was not a "project management tool" as such, although radars could of course be used in project management. It was indeed just a bug tracker, but yes, a very powerful one. At bottom it was a giant Oracle database, with several frontends.

[marcellus23]

I can't speak as to what Radar looked like a decade ago.

[olliej]

No. B.w.o has no release tracking, it has no ability to track dependencies on other Apple projects, etc

B.w.o is where bug fixes happen, no more. Code dev and review has to happen in b.w.o by the webkit community rules, not radar.

[saagarjha]

That’s now on GitHub.

[dagmx]

There’s also a difference between WebKit (the open source code) and Safari (the closed source software)

I assume internally they’re treated as one component which makes it easier to mirror bugs into radar?

[saagarjha]

WebKit has a closed source component that ships alongside Safari, which is entirely closed source.