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
 |
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.platform
From: Robert Kaiser <ka...@kairo.at>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:16:32 +0200
Local: Wed, Mar 28 2007 12:16 pm
Subject: Re: Mozilla 2 repository migration dirlist
bren...@mozilla.org schrieb:
> See http://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla2 for more. The initial repository I see no recent comment on that, and given that reportedly the only real > will be a Mercurial one, but don't panic. We need to get to work on > Mozilla 2 concurrently with 1.9, and we can't wait for the perfect > repository solution to emerge. We'll start with hg, and reconsider bzr > if it speeds up enough. See preed's blog for why we can't use git or > other contenders and wannabes. argument against git is/was that almost half a year ago there was no well-performing win32 port. This reportedly has changed, so despite some people telling "git is no option" without bringing forward any current argument, I think it should be re-evaluated as a third possible choice. From what I hear, it probably has the most vibrant dev community of all those choices and works well with a few quite big (in code and community size) projects - and I tend to think that's something that has value for Mozilla as well. > Also do not panic about the above list leaving out mail, mailnews, Well, this means that people working on anything else than Firefox will > composer, calendar, camino, etc. Mozilla 2 needs focus and the > repository can grow. Or, with better VCSes such as hg, we can have > several repositories. With better embedding APIs we won't want to > tightly couple source of a given XUL app to source of a given Gecko > back end file. But we will want to keep Firefox and XULRunner building > at all times. So the above list does include those two. probably just not care about that Mozilla2 repo as they can't build their stuff with/from it. That may be intended, but it creates a major split within the Mozilla dev community (the privileged who can use Mozilla2, and the dumb rest that is more or less closed out from it and whose wishes/bugs/problems won't be looked at a lot there). I'm not sure this is a good thing to do. In my eyes, reducing the amount of code managed by the repo just tells that the new VCS is not as capable as CVS of managing a huge codebase like the one we have. Robert Kaiser 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.
| |||||||||||||