Sorry nothing much to say but +1
Matthieu
> On Oct 27, 2016, at 21:30, Gabriele Svelto wrote:
>
> Replying to myself since nobody thought it worthwhile to reply and have
> an open, honest discussion on this ML about this.
>
> Parts of the gonk widget have already been
Replying to myself since nobody thought it worthwhile to reply and have
an open, honest discussion on this ML about this.
Parts of the gonk widget have already been removed; so the decision to
do it was taken was not communicated publicly. Or maybe it was never up
for discussion. I don't know
On 04/10/16 17:40, Fabrice Desre wrote:
On 10/04/2016 08:34 AM, Axel Hecht wrote:
I'd favor to remove at least anything related to l10n from b2g. It never
really worked, and is a half-maintained copy of the almost-working stuff
in mobile.
In my local branches that try to create a test on
On 04/10/16 12:16, Gabriele Svelto wrote:
* b2g
~20K lines which would also drop considerably due to the removal of
the APIs, completely self-contained
I'd favor to remove at least anything related to l10n from b2g. It never
really worked, and is a half-maintained copy of the
On 10/04/2016 08:34 AM, Axel Hecht wrote:
I'd favor to remove at least anything related to l10n from b2g. It never
really worked, and is a half-maintained copy of the almost-working stuff
in mobile.
In my local branches that try to create a test on broken l10n
infrastructure, both mobile and
On 04/10/2016 01:22, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?q=gonk seems to
> contradict your assertion that gonk is well-contained.
I thought that the analysis in my first post was sufficiently detailed
but here's one with line numbers to get a more accurate idea:
A comparison point: I opened
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1264155 a while back
about removing widget/uikit/ -- which is used by the old iOS port of
Firefox -- and others disagreed so I let it slide. So there's
precedent for little-used/unused widget code hanging around. (Whether
or
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Gabriele Svelto wrote:
> > Respectively, it seems like these requests were ultimately not included
> > in the final decision.
>
> I would like to know why; I think that's not much to ask. I would also
> like to know why this decision was made
> Respectively, it seems like these requests were ultimately not included
> in the final decision.
I would like to know why; I think that's not much to ask. I would also
like to know why this decision was made without any public discussion.
As I've pointed out the removal of another widget was
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 3:31 AM, Gabriele Svelto
wrote:
>
> Since gonk is a widget on its own, during the internal discussions about
> it I - and others who worked on B2G - repeatedly asked for the gonk
> widget to be left in the code even after the removal of all the
>
On 30 September 2016 at 11:31, Gabriele Svelto wrote:
> Since gonk is a widget on its own, during the internal discussions about
> it I - and others who worked on B2G - repeatedly asked for the gonk
> widget to be left in the code even after the removal of all the
>
On 30/09/2016 06:04, Chris Peterson wrote:
> Is Gonk used anywhere besides B2G? Can we remove all Gonk code, e.g.
> dom/camera/Gonk* and #ifdef MOZ_WIDGET_GONK?
Gonk is not used anywhere else, some of it's code was merged with
Fennec's code to reduce the maintenance burden but there's still quite
On 9/29/2016 11:46 AM, Sebastian Hengst wrote:
as has been announced earlier
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.fxos/FoAwifahNPY the
Boot 2 Gecko (B2G) code will be removed from mozilla-central.
Is Gonk used anywhere besides B2G? Can we remove all Gonk code, e.g.
Hi,
as has been announced earlier
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.fxos/FoAwifahNPY the
Boot 2 Gecko (B2G) code will be removed from mozilla-central.
A tracking bug has been created for that work:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1306391 So if you remove
code
14 matches
Mail list logo