Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
mozilla.dev.platform
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Mozilla 2 repository migration dirlist
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
 
brendan@mozilla.org  
View profile  
 More options Mar 28 2007, 3:28 pm
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.platform
From: "bren...@mozilla.org" <bren...@mozilla.org>
Date: 28 Mar 2007 12:28:13 -0700
Local: Wed, Mar 28 2007 3:28 pm
Subject: Re: Mozilla 2 repository migration dirlist
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Mar 28, 12:17 pm, Robert Sayre <say...@gmail.com> wrote:

> bren...@mozilla.org wrote:

> > But we're not going to make everyone happy. We're going to shrink and
> > speed up our codebase and move the web forward with the big lever,
> > Firefox, and the platform it's built on, which is codified as
> > XULRunner. I suggest you argue with facts and bug citations (if you
> > can find bugs where anyone shortchanged another XUL app without good
> > reason).

> All bug citations of that sort, good or bad, are proof that there is a
> non-zero coordination cost in the current CVS layout.

I claim you can cite bugs that demonstrate we've taken patches that
have nothing to do with Firefox, even late in the release cycle. Which
falsifies what I read as Simon's contention that the manifesto is a
lie and we care only about Firefox.

You're right there are non-zero coordination costs -- no free lunch.
This should be, like, "duh" material. That it is not, or that everyone
wants *his* lunch for free, and screw the other guy and Firefox, is
the underlying problem in my view.

> Firefox has the leverage to keep the Web open, so that's where the
> resources go. It would be completely irresponsible to ignore that
> leverage when making allocations.

Yes, good point. You are more explicit than I was, but I said so by
talking about Thunderbird, which has millions of users.

> So, a centralized CVS repository comes
> with a bureaucracy that must focus on Firefox for a variety of reasons,
> and that harms other projects.

This is a good point too. I suspect many folks -- not all -- are
laboring under the limitations, assumptions, and working culture of
the CVS single master repository model.

> The point of switching to hg or bzr or git is to enable a mesh of
> repositories rather than one single, lumbering monster. Brendan
> correctly points out that this spread is already happening with Joost,
> Flock, Zap et al. We need to make it easier. Wouldn't it be nice to pull
> changes from XPCOM and Toolkit at will, without the need to negotiate
> branch policies with Firefox drivers, and still be able to track the
> rest of the repository sanely?

With better merge algs to boot!

/be


 
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
©2012 Google