Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

After reading this whole long thread (though I daresay I've read some parts of it "diagonally") I learned in it that the official MoCo policy is that Firefox developers must NEVER spend time (or at least company time) on giving the least help to Thunderbird and SeaMonkey. This made me sad but di

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

Noteworthy, elsewhere in this thread, I did state that while I am a MoCo paid staff member, working in Release Engineering. and while this would NOT be part of my paid duties. I *did* state that I really want this bad enough that I'd volunteer to work on and complete the Release Engineering por

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central (summary v1)

From my points of view, merging thunderbird back into mozilla source tree is not a good idea. And I think we need to html-ize the Thunderbird source tree, and remove the C/C++ dependencies to gecko as much as possible. And merging the comm back into mozilla-central is getting comm to be to BIG to m

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 01:12:30PM -0600, Joshua Cranmer ? wrote: > > On 11/6/2015 12:38 PM, Doug Turner wrote: > > >I would have rather done this in a private email, but some replied and > said I wasn’t clear. > > > > > > > > >-> Do not merge

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 01:12:30PM -0600, Joshua Cranmer ? wrote: > On 11/6/2015 12:38 PM, Doug Turner wrote: > >I would have rather done this in a private email, but some replied and said > >I wasn’t clear. > > > > > >-> Do not merge comm-central into mozilla-central <- > > > > > >1) I think merg

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 11/6/2015 12:38 PM, Doug Turner wrote: I would have rather done this in a private email, but some replied and said I wasn’t clear. -> Do not merge comm-central into mozilla-central <- 1) I think merging comm-central is a bad idea as it will basically tax all gecko + firefox developers fo

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

I would have rather done this in a private email, but some replied and said I wasn’t clear. -> Do not merge comm-central into mozilla-central <- 1) I think merging comm-central is a bad idea as it will basically tax all gecko + firefox developers forever. 2) It isn’t clear that Thunderbird i

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

It’s not a simple thing to just merge the code bases. It’s going to cause a bunch of work in Release which we’re just not signed up for. In our planning for 2016, I will add this to what we’d like to do — but no promises as there are lots of high priority things we need to get done. Doug >

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central (summary v1)

On 2015/10/27 9:06, Philipp Kewisch wrote: Hi all, I'd love to see if we can move towards an agreement. For those of you that would prefer not to merge, I'd love to hear what your absolute minimum requirements would be that you'd accept a merge with. Changes to hg? Changes to dxr? A policy chana

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

This thread has quieted down for a while, but I don't want to let it die out without a clear consensus being reached. What I want to know is whether or not there is sufficient consensus for the merge to happen that I can start planning with release engineering and automation on getting merged

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

Has a decision been made or was this all just NATO (No Action, Talk Only)? Jorg K. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 10/23/15 8:32 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: >> >> I support merging c-c into m-c. > > > For what it's worth, I do as well. Of course I also do some due diligence > about not breaking Thunderbird before landing patches, just like I do for

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 > wrote: > >> I also wonder why you have a peculiar insistence that comm-central code >> must not appear to any contributor, given the continued existence of "stuff >> that Firefox doesn't ca

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 3:58:07 AM UTC-4, Mike Hommey wrote: > Hi, > > This has been discussed in the past, to no avail. I would like to reopen > the discussion. > > Acknowledgment: this is heavily inspired from a list compiled by Joshua > Cranmer, but please consider this *also* coming fr

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 10/27/15 3:55 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: We did replace our uses with nsPIDOMWindow, but it's an example of an API that can be used external to libxul being replaced with one that can't be. Just to be clear, we're happy to make things on nsPIDOMWindow virtual or exported as needed to the e

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 10/23/15 8:32 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: I support merging c-c into m-c. For what it's worth, I do as well. Of course I also do some due diligence about not breaking Thunderbird before landing patches, just like I do for Firefox extensions and whatnot and I feel that that is the mo

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 10/27/2015 2:50 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 10/27/15 3:17 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: [1] An example from just this morning is the emasculation of nsIDOMWindow. It's clear at this point that all of our binary code has to be linked into libxul Why can you not use nsPIDOMWindow? If there are

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 10/27/15 3:17 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: [1] An example from just this morning is the emasculation of nsIDOMWindow. It's clear at this point that all of our binary code has to be linked into libxul Why can you not use nsPIDOMWindow? If there are particular APIs it's missing that you need,

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

on misinformation and misapprehensions about the current state of affairs, and I believe that such a decision would reflect badly on everyone involved. It is precisely that situation that I am most earnest to avoid, and it is my sincere belief that merging comm-central into mozilla-central is t

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 27/10/2015 15:24, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:44:40PM -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Nicholas Nethercote >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> >> >> The question is, do we fix that friction by making col

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 27/10/2015 03:32, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: Over the years I have gained a *ton* of experience in code that interfaces with both Firefox and Thunderbird/SeaMonkey. I can't really think of a single instance where I made a change in that code and it broke something in Thunderbird and the breakage wa

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:24:45PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:44:40PM -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Nicholas Nethercote > > wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > >> > > >> The question is, do we fix t

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:44:40PM -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Nicholas Nethercote > wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> > >> The question is, do we fix that friction by making collaboration > >> easier, or do we fix it by redu

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> The question is, do we fix that friction by making collaboration >> easier, or do we fix it by reducing collaboration. > > Yes. Merging c-c into m-c would achieve the first a

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

I'm in the middle of a hectic business trip, so will write more while i"m on the plane home tonight. The first thing to figure out, as Doug said, is how much support the project should provide Thunderbird. 5 minutes might be an obvious yes, as noted earlier. At some level the answer is an ob

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > The question is, do we fix that friction by making collaboration > easier, or do we fix it by reducing collaboration. Yes. Merging c-c into m-c would achieve the first alternative. (And it has support from plenty of people in this thread,

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 2015-10-26 7:17 PM, Philipp Kewisch wrote: On 10/23/15 11:09 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: It may well be that having c-c code in m-c decreases friction overall, since it saves time for the people that know they're allowed to break TB but choose to help it anyway. However, the cost of redirected

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 2015-10-26 7:26 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Justin Dolske 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

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

Jonas Sicking schrieb: 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. I think the only way to "fix the friction

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central (summary v1)

Hi all, I'd love to see if we can move towards an agreement. For those of you that would prefer not to merge, I'd love to hear what your absolute minimum requirements would be that you'd accept a merge with. Changes to hg? Changes to dxr? A policy chanage? If we can establish clear requirements, m

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 10/24/15 1:41 AM, Bobby Holley wrote: > We have three options: > (1) Build peers do a bunch of extra work to support c-c in a separate repo. > (2) We land c-c in m-c, so that build peers can support it without much > extra work. > (3) We don't land c-c in m-c, build peers ignore c-c, and TB fend

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 10/24/15 3:15 AM, Doug Turner wrote: > Thunderbird is under supported and potentially harmful (as Brian Smith > pointed out on the mozilla-dev-security-policy back in Sept). Before merging > c-c into m-c, I think we should have agreement on what kind of support the > mozilla project and foun

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: > FWIW, when Brian Smith made his comments on mozilla.dev.security.policy, I > did try to find a bug detailing what he was talking about... and I couldn't > find what he was talking about, which means that our security team is > finding pro

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 10/23/2015 8:25 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote: Yes, this is a good topic and I agree i'm a necessary party here. Is there some way of getting a good sense of the work that we're talking about? I'm not sure which work you're referring to here, but I will try to answer to the best of my abilities

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 10/23/15 11:22 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: >> What's even more sad is that it's at the expense of Thunderbird (and >> > SeaMonkey) *and* at the expense of Firefox build system changes. >> > > That may be a reason for the people working on the build system to refactor > it without consideration for T

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Jonas Sicking 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 pu

Re: Spare Checkouts (Was: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central)

On 10/26/2015 04:01 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: On 10/26/2015 4:16 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: Question: Would we actually need sparse checkouts? What if c-c was just a branch in the repo with extra stuff, which periodically took merges from m-c? That seems like a simple and tempting idea. Ju

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 10/23/15 11:09 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> It may well be that having c-c code in m-c decreases friction overall, >> > since it saves time for the people that know they're allowed to break TB >> > but choose to help it anyway. However, the cost of redirected work for >> > contributors that _don'

Re: Spare Checkouts (Was: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central)

On 10/26/2015 4:16 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: Question: Would we actually need sparse checkouts? What if c-c was just a branch in the repo with extra stuff, which periodically took merges from m-c? That makes bisecting to find m-c-induced failures harder, and it also makes atomic commits (even

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 10/26/15 10:05 PM, Steve Fink wrote: > > Perhaps the concern is that it's foolish to merge it in now if the > direction of c-c development is going to end up needing it split out > eventually anyway? I doubt that's near enough at hand to matter, > personally, and splitting it back out doesn't s

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Jonas Sicking 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 rewrit

Spare Checkouts (Was: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central)

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Steve Fink wrote: > For the second one, it feels like a bit of a scary amount of complication > in order to avoid seeing distracting code during a typical grep, but it > also feels like a good pragmatic way to minimize the distraction caused by > c-c's presence in

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 10/23/2015 10:22 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: I support going back to a giant monolithic repository if we can cleanly delineate the code for various projects. We know that the searchability and readability of our code is a major barrier to some kinds of participation. We should continue to

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 10/23/15 10:22 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: I'm sorry that it makes you sad, but Mozilla has explicitly decided to prioritize the bar to entry for Firefox development, and the speed of development of Firefox, at the expense of Thunderbird (and seamonkey). And as Firefox development moves fast

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Jonas Sicking schrieb: >> >> I definitely think that some aspects of Firefox development has gotten >> easier thanks to the split. > > I'd like to see which. I don't see much that has gotten easier *because of > the split*. I see a lot that h

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

Edmund Wong schrieb: As for the long term plans, I'll wait for one of the SeaMonkey council members to comment on that; but I believe we are determined to maintain the SeaMonkey code. I'll weigh in as a SeaMonkey Council member - even though I mostly watch what's going on while Edmund is actua

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

Jonas Sicking schrieb: I definitely think that some aspects of Firefox development has gotten easier thanks to the split. I'd like to see which. I don't see much that has gotten easier *because of the split*. I see a lot that has gotten easier because we change platform and Firefox (mostly) w

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

Jonas Sicking schrieb: Would it be possible to create a thunderbird build system which simply takes the output of a firefox build and grabs the files that it needs, and builds the additions that thunderbird needs. Generally speaking, libraries don't worry about having a build system which enable

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

Hi all, I have followed the discussion with interest and I'd like to suggest to focus on the practical aspect. The facts are: Thunderbird, SeaMonkey and Calendar/Lightning are Mozilla products (with a significant number of users). They are maintained by dedicated communities. (Kent has expla

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2015-10-23 2:17 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: >> It's a relatively easy matter to fix the first; the second is harder to >> do for all contributors. I've been told it's a coming feature, but I've >> been told this for a while. >> >> I also wonder why you have a peculiar insi

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

Yes, this is a good topic and I agree i'm a necessary party here. Is there some way of getting a good sense of the work that we're talking about? mitchell On 10/23/15 6:15 PM, Doug Turner wrote: Thunderbird is under supported and potentially harmful (as Brian Smith pointed out on the mozilla

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

Thunderbird is under supported and potentially harmful (as Brian Smith pointed out on the mozilla-dev-security-policy back in Sept). Before merging c-c into m-c, I think we should have agreement on what kind of support the mozilla project and foundation is going to give to Thunderbird. I think

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 04:52:05PM -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > > If we (m-c build peers) didn't care about comm-central at all, I can pretty > > much guarantee that comm-central would be perpetually broken once m-c build > > system improvem

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > But I think that the clear directive from project leadership has been > to prioritize Firefox development over other Gecko based projects. > I don't think that's unqualified. If killing off Thunderbird forever saves a Firefox developer fiv

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > If we (m-c build peers) didn't care about comm-central at all, I can pretty > much guarantee that comm-central would be perpetually broken once m-c build > system improvements ramp up in the months ahead. C-c's contributors would > have to sp

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: >> The goal of putting seamonkey and thunderbird in separate trees has >> always been to make firefox development easier, not harder. That >> should include the build system. > > And the point of this thread is that it hasn't, and I can't em

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > If we (m-c build peers) didn't care about comm-central at all, I can pretty > much guarantee that comm-central would be perpetually broken once m-c build > system improvements ramp up in the months ahead. C-c's contributors would > have to s

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > > > > We'll be investing pretty heavily in the Firefox build system in 2016. I > > cannot stress enough the pain comm-central's existence as a separate > > repository gives us when tr

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 10/23/2015 3:21 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: Except that to demand contributors don't care about comm-central would be to demand of your employees that they should be jerks to the wider open-source community. As pointed out by others, this is completely untrue, and I personally think that frami

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 10/23/2015 3:09 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: Hmm, I'm having difficulty reconciling what you're saying above with this email from two days ago . What happens if Thunderbird decides on option 3 listed there (move away from u

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 10/23/2015 4:42 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: Let me rephrase. Are Thunderbird and SeaMonkey committed towards long term maintenance of their code, should it be moved into mozilla-central? That is the bare minimum necessary (but not sufficient) condition for having this conversation. From wha

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015, at 01:02 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: > Actually, the b2g email app does reuse JSMime (or at least will be > shortly). Clarifying: Yes, library reuse is happening and it's good and awesome and we want more of it. But: b2g gaia email does not now and is unlikely to ever care a

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 10/23/2015 5:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: Can this be solved without migrating c-c into m-c? Would it be possible to create a thunderbird build system which simply takes the output of a firefox build and grabs the files that it needs, and builds the additions that thunderbird needs. Not with

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 10/23/2015 2:22 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: That may be a reason for the people working on the build system to refactor it without consideration for Thunderbird. That may sound heartless, but it is the current directive from the organization that is paying us to work on m-c. Whether or not Mozill

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

weeks, we can't > easily make wanted changes to jar.mn files or packaging of add-ons/XPIs > because it means developing, testing, and coordinating landing of changes > across mozilla-central and comm-central. It's much easier to let > sub-optimal patterns linger in mozilla-central

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > > We'll be investing pretty heavily in the Firefox build system in 2016. I > cannot stress enough the pain comm-central's existence as a separate > repository gives us when trying to make build system, mach, and automation > changes. It slows

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

central is too high. I dare say the knowledge of impending dread from having to deal with comm-central fallout has discouraged me from making major build system and tooling changes. This situation passively hurts everyone. > >> Continued existence of comm-central as a separate rep

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

e out how to make TB build alongside Firefox? -Ekr > Continued existence of comm-central as a separate repository will slow down > build system, tools, and automation progress. The developer productivity > survey results say that Mozilla staff overwhelmingly want these things to > be

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

zilla staff overwhelmingly want these things to be much better. A vote against this proposal is a vote against making the jobs of "toolers" easier and a vote delaying the progress of improvements to developer workflows, infrastructure, productivity, and happiness. As a "tooler" who wants to make your lives better, I emphatically support merging comm-central into mozilla-central. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 2015-10-23 6:00 PM, R Kent James wrote: On 10/23/2015 2:42 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: Firefox hg repos will adapt to their changes, so the Thunderbird hg repos will adapt to changes. That doesn't answer my question. No, but it does address that issue that you brought up, whether discussio

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 10/23/2015 2:42 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: Firefox hg repos will adapt to their changes, so the Thunderbird hg repos will adapt to changes. That doesn't answer my question. No, but it does address that issue that you brought up, whether discussions of other major directions for Thunderbir

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 2015-10-23 5:20 PM, R Kent James wrote: On 10/23/2015 1:21 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: What are the long term plans for the Thunderbird and SeaMonkey community to maintain their code, if it gets merged into m-c? On tb-planning I see ongoing discussions about moving to other platforms such as El

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 10/23/2015 1:21 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: What are the long term plans for the Thunderbird and SeaMonkey community to maintain their code, if it gets merged into m-c? On tb-planning I see ongoing discussions about moving to other platforms such as Electron, or the broader doubts about how Thun

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:22:35PM -0400, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: > > I support going back to a giant monolithic repository if we can cleanly > > delineate the code for various projects. > > > > We know that the searchability and readability

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

t; > open-source community. Merging comm-central into mozilla-central, with > the > > exception of the time spent doing the actual merge work, would reduce the > > amount of time that core contributors would have to spend worrying about > > comm-central in the short and medium-t

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:22:35PM -0400, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: > I support going back to a giant monolithic repository if we can cleanly > delineate the code for various projects. > > We know that the searchability and readability of our code is a major > barrier to some kinds of participation

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

ntrue, and I personally think that framing the problem like this isn't the most helpful. Please note that even if we move the code into m-c, we will continue to break it (unintentionally) so Thunderbird will still see regressions caused by "upstream" changes that they need to deal wi

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: >> I'm sorry that it makes you sad, but Mozilla has explicitly decided to >> prioritize the bar to entry for Firefox development, and the speed of >> development of Firefox, at the expense of Thunderbird (and seamonkey). And >> as Firefox d

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: Except that to demand contributors don't care about comm-central would be > to demand of your employees that they should be jerks to the wider > open-source community. Merging comm-central into mozilla-central, with the >

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015, at 02:17 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: > Except that to demand contributors don't care about comm-central would > be to demand of your employees that they should be jerks to the wider > open-source community. Merging comm-central into mozilla-central, with &

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

e not only saying that you don't have to fix comm-central apps: we're also saying that we don't *want* core contributors to spend time on comm-central. Except that to demand contributors don't care about comm-central would be to demand of your employees that they should be

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: > I support going back to a giant monolithic repository if we can cleanly > delineate the code for various projects. > > We know that the searchability and readability of our code is a major > barrier to some kinds of participation. We sho

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

I support going back to a giant monolithic repository if we can cleanly delineate the code for various projects. We know that the searchability and readability of our code is a major barrier to some kinds of participation. We should continue to optimize ourselves around that workflow. Does t

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

+1 from me. I'd just like to speak to one small part below. On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > Hi, > > This has been discussed in the past, to no avail. I would like to reopen > the discussion. > - It sets a bad precedent, other Gecko-based projects might want to > merg

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 10/23/2015 11:56 AM, Fabrice Desré wrote: On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 11:18:32 +0200, Ms2ger wrote: On the plus side, it could make it easier to share code between thunderbird and the b2g email code. Not really since the b2g email app is on github and doesn't share code with thunderbird for now.

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 11:18:32 +0200, Ms2ger wrote: > On the plus side, it could make it easier to share code between > thunderbird and the b2g email code. Not really since the b2g email app is on github and doesn't share code with thunderbird for now. Fabrice _

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 10/23/2015 3:43 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote: IMO this is one of the two serious concerns. However, I /think/ it will only add an incremental burden. If nothing else, perhaps this will force us to better invest in tools that automatically handle refactorings. The other serious concern is impact to

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On 23/10/15 04:43 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote: - It adds burden to developers, needing to support those projects merged from comm-central. Just look around in mozilla-central at all the optional things that are not visible on treeherder and break regularly. The situation wouldn't b

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

Le 23/10/2015 09:57, Mike Hommey a écrit : > Hi, > > This has been discussed in the past, to no avail. I would like to reopen > the discussion. > > Acknowledgment: this is heavily inspired from a list compiled by Joshua > Cranmer, but please consider this *also* coming from me, with my build > sys

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/23/2015 09:57 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > - It adds burden to developers, needing to support those projects > merged from comm-central. Just look around in mozilla-central at > all the optional things that are not visible on treeherder and > break

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > Hi, > > This has been discussed in the past, to no avail. I would like to reopen > the discussion. > > Acknowledgment: this is heavily inspired from a list compiled by Joshua > Cranmer, but please consider this *also* coming from me, with my b

Re: Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > > - Relatedly, many codebase-wise changes (e.g. refactorings), or core API > changes tend to break comm-central. While it can be argued that it > shouldn't be platform engineers' burden to care about those, the fact > is that even if they

Merging comm-central into mozilla-central

Hi, This has been discussed in the past, to no avail. I would like to reopen the discussion. Acknowledgment: this is heavily inspired from a list compiled by Joshua Cranmer, but please consider this *also* coming from me, with my build system peer hat on. What: Let's first summarize what this i