On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Nicholas Nethercote <n.netherc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Jonas Sicking <jo...@sicking.cc> wrote: >> >> Given that people are already feeling pressure to fix up thunderbird >> code when they land patches, I can only see that pressure increasing >> when you don't even need to pull a separate tree. > > That's more or less correct, though I'd rewrite it as the following: > > "Given that people are already feeling pressure to fix up thunderbird > code when they land patches, we should make things easier by not > making them need to pull a separate tree."
Well, that's exactly the question in this thread, isn't it. Everyone acknowledges that there's currently friction due to the way that collaboration with thunderbird is done. The question is, do we fix that friction by making collaboration easier, or do we fix it by reducing collaboration. > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Justin Dolske <dol...@mozilla.com> wrote: > >> +1. Last time this thread came up, I thought the guidance was that core >> contributors (and especially MoCo employees) should explicitly *not* be >> spending time on TB/SM code. Even in the "I'll just be nice and go a bit out >> of my way", because those costs are undervalued and add up. > > Speaking for myself: even if I did ignore c-c, ignoring c-c doesn't > come with zero cost. Because if I change an API used by thunderbird > then a bug will be filed, and it will be marked as depending on the > bug in which I changed the API, and I'll see that in bugmail, and then > I'll read the bug, and feel bad that I inconvenienced someone -- but > I'll be strong, I'll ignore that bad feeling -- and then maybe they'll > need to needinfo me to ask about the change Yup. This matches my experience exactly. This is a good example of the above mentioned friction. / Jonas _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
