I CCed them upthread, but then the subsequent reply dropped them. ;-) I would suggest starting a new, explicit thread with a summary of what's been discussed thus far (rather than asking them to jump into this one), and CCing dev-servo.
That being said, my guess is that it's going to be a mostly academic discussion, because the workflow issues mentioned above would likely lead us to vendoring even without the requirements from the build peers. On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Yehuda Katz <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:17 PM, James Graham <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > It is not immediately apparent to me if that is sufficient to meet the > > Gecko requirements, but again, having this conversation on a list without > > gps, ted, glandium and other build peers seems rather counterproductive > > since they know both the requirements that we have from our current build > > system, and the improvements that are in the pipeline for next year > (which > > I understand to be numerous and considered a priority). Without this > > information it's impossible to tell if any proposed change to cargo is > > solving the right problem. > > > Can we get them here? I'm very interested in working through this with > someone who knows all of the constraints deeply. At minimum, I would like > Cargo to be a suitable tool for people in similar situations as much as > possible. > > -- Yehuda > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dev-servo mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-servo > > > _______________________________________________ > dev-servo mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-servo > _______________________________________________ dev-servo mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-servo
