Don't we just fork it if we need changes? We should be taking the same tact with Picasso too. We don't need to be limited by what changes can be upstreamed. We should work with 3rd party code to upstream changes in an acceptable way for the 3rd party code, but that doesn't mean we are limited. If we didn't use 3rd party code, we be writing code ourselves. Code that we'd need to maintain on our own. Not much different than the situation Wes is talking about.
----- Original Message ----- > I didn't see this when I wrote in the bug, but I have been... worried with > this stuff. Getting changes into third party code in general is hard. > Getting changes into Picasso has proved to be kinda a pain, and from what > I've seen here Jake isn't maintaining NineOldAndroids anymore (he's big into > the "just leave anyone not on ICS behind" movement). Are we going to be > shooting ourselves in the foot if we ever need to extend, change, or fix > this slightly? > - Wes > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Margaret Leibovic" <[email protected]> > To: "Lucas Rocha" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Brian Nicholson" <[email protected]>, "mobile-firefox-dev" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 3:19:54 PM > Subject: Re: NineOldAndroids for pre-HC animations > To follow up on this thread, I'm planning to land NineOldAndroids in the tree > as part of bug 1044133. > I filed bug 1044257 as a meta bug for a general migration, and I started > filing a few mentor bugs to update individual animations. Please help me > file more! You're also welcome to file a bug with a patch if you come across > any animations that could use updating. > Margaret > _______________________________________________ > mobile-firefox-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mobile-firefox-dev
_______________________________________________ mobile-firefox-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mobile-firefox-dev
