On 12/12/2013 12:08 PM, Brian Hackett wrote: > I think mozilla-inbound is a failed experiment.
I don't fully agree, but I see the point. Personally, I just buffer up patches when I want to push and inbound's closed. Out of sight, out of mind temporarily is an easy enough way to avoid frustration for me. YMMV. > I think we should move back to a model where there is a separate tree > where JS patches land, which is periodically merged to > mozilla-central. JS patches tend to not conflict with patches in > other parts of the tree so this merging should be straightforward. > The only tree closures should be because of bustage in JS and > infrastructure issues. Whatever the demerits of inbound, I don't think it's worth burning a bunch of someone's (or everyone's) time to act as tree-shepherd to merge patches over and mark bugs as fixed. If a solution doesn't involve that, I could be receptive to it. (Although, I think you significantly underplay the possibility of inbound/ourtree conflicts -- I remember them happening regularly when we had the TM tree.) Jeff _______________________________________________ dev-tech-js-engine-internals mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine-internals
