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, 1:31 pm
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.platform
From: "bren...@mozilla.org" <bren...@mozilla.org>
Date: 28 Mar 2007 10:31:16 -0700
Local: Wed, Mar 28 2007 1:31 pm
Subject: Re: Mozilla 2 repository migration dirlist
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Mar 28, 9:16 am, Robert Kaiser <k...@kairo.at> wrote:

> I see no recent comment on that, and given that reportedly the only real
> 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.

Got a link to pages documenting this git windows work? jst uses git on
cvs today, he keeps up, he's a fan. It's not as if we have it in for
git.

> Well, this means that people working on anything else than Firefox will
> 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).

Nice false dilemma. But since we will give all committers access to
the new repo, and merge trunk changes into Mozilla 2, and keep API
compatibility where we want it (and in all cases, initially), it's
simply not true that anyone is locked out.

Having to host an app elsewhere from the core back end has its pluses
and minuses. It's already being done by the Flocks, Joosts, and
Songbirds of the world. It was done by chimera (camino) initially.
Tinderbox/buildbot coverage is independent of source hosting.

> I'm not sure
> this is a good thing to do.

It's a trade-off:

Pro: focus on Mozilla 2 APIs for Firefox and XULRunner; smaller pull;
more approachable repository (contrast to webkit).

Con: two repositories for other apps; feelings of a division among
apps and people.

If we can use features of the new VCS to host other apps in the new
repo but not obtrusively, we may consider using such features. But now
is not the time to worry about this, before we've committed any of the
automated refactoring patches taras is generating, or done any of the
other more bottom-up/back-to-front work for Moz2.

> 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.

There's no evidence for that.

/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