Searchfox is the best thing ever. It made a huge difference in the speed and ease with which I can query the codebase and get the answers I need.
My understanding is that Bill achieved a lot of the performance and correctness wins over dxr with different architectural choices, and by using Rust. I think the results validate his design choices, and I think it is very reasonable for him to have started from scratch in order to experiment without needing to align with the dxr roadmap. I would be thrilled if dxr could incorporate the technology in searchfox or somehow achieve similar performance and features in some other way. But until that is shown to be possible, the existence of searchfox is a huge win for gecko hacking, and I am very grateful for the work Bill put into it (largely on his own time, iiuc). bholley On 07/06/16 01:18 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > I'm going to sound negative, but why? Or more precisely, why not > contribute to DXR to add those features that you implemented in > searchfox that DXR doesn't have? > > MXR is already taking too long to fade out of existence, do we really > want yet another different tool? > > Mike > +1. The technical achievement here is very impressive, and there looks to be a ton of useful features. The blame walking looks especially useful for me. But DXR is very actively developed, has 45 contributors and 146 forks: https://github.com/mozilla/dxr I just don't see the point of competition between internal code searching tools. I would love if ideas from searchfox (like blame walking) could be incorporated into DXR. Andrew _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
