Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
mozilla.dev.planning
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Fwd: Proposed changes to supported build configurations (tiers)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Benjamin Smedberg  
View profile  
 More options Aug 30 2010, 8:31 am
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.ports.os2, mozilla.dev.planning
From: Benjamin Smedberg <benja...@smedbergs.us>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:31:14 -0400
Local: Mon, Aug 30 2010 8:31 am
Subject: Re: Fwd: Proposed changes to supported build configurations (tiers)
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 8/29/10 4:46 PM, Steve Wendt wrote:

> It seems to me that "actively maintained" is a far better way to define the
> second tier than "important to maintain." If the "community" is truly
> encompassing, then every platform with a port is important to those that use
> it. What distinguishes some over others is whether there are people actively
> maintaining them.

I agree with mconnor, but I'd like to follow up on this myself. As a project
with a community with many different desires, we have to prioritize some
things over others. The support tiers are a formalization of that support
mechanism. I am firmly convinced that OS/2 support should *never* cause us
to back out a patch. This is very different from our mobile platforms and
platforms we're trying to spin up into future products.

It isn't sufficient that a tier or feature be actively maintained. Overall,
it has to be important enough to get developers to spend time thinking about
it. There are many platforms which are definitely not that important: OS/2,
AIX, etc.

In some cases we've gone beyond and said that we will not support an
architecture at all, something like a "tier WONTFIX". This includes VMS, GCC
2.x and 3.x, Amiga, and MacOS 9. So far OS/2 has managed to avoid being on
this list by upgrading compilers and being generally unobtrusive. But when
we decide to require IPC, for example, I doubt that we would accept OS/2 new
compatibility into the chromium porting layer, even if we did have an active
maintainer. The cost/benefit ratio just doesn't make a good tradeoff.

--BDS


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google