Hello BOSUG-ians, Just dug up this mail from my inbox. This has useful info for people who want to build/maintain FF3 on OpenSolaris/BeleniX
Fwd-ing this message from mozilla dev mailing list. Begin forwarded message: > From: Samuel Sidler <samuel.sidler at gmail.com> > Date: 2 March 2008 6:10:15 AM GMT+05:30 > To: dev-platform at lists.mozilla.org > Subject: Is "Gecko" 1.9 only Firefox? > > (Cross-posting to dev-planning. Follow-ups to dev-platform.) > > As we get closer to release, I'm seeing more and more core bugs > minused for "blocking1.9". Often time, this is good as we've plussed > many things that aren't nearly major enough to fix. However, many > times, these are clear regressions that simply don't affect Firefox. > As a Camino contributor in my off time, this brings up a pretty > critical question to me, personally: Are we considering Gecko 1.9 a > Firefox-only release? > > Previous conversations between Damon and other Camino contributors (on > IRC a couple/few months ago) implied that we're indeed considering > Gecko 1.9 a proper Gecko release and giving other mozilla.org apps [1] > that rely on our codebase the same amount of core support they've > received in the past. I.e., not shipping with regressions that were > caused from changes made for Firefox and/or providing a clear way for > them to move forward to a new, supported way of implementing their > same features without hacking around bad changes. > > However, I've seen drivers minus bugs and leave comments that counter > that idea. For example: "We certainly aren't going to block the > Firefox release on an issue that doesn't affect Firefox." [2] Fixing > such bugs later, on the actual timeline of another product's release > isn't always possible (changing major core components to fix other > products doesn't fly in point releases like 1.9.0.x given that those > changes usually can affect Firefox) and/or ends up creating huge hacks > in the codebase. > > In the past, we've blocked on bugs in Gecko releases that didn't > affect Firefox but were clearly regressions from Firefox-focused > checkins. If this has changed, I think it needs to be announced > somewhere, very publicly, with a clear statement as to why we're > making that change in policy (and if it wasn't a policy, feel free to > substitute "behavior" there). > > I understand our need to release Firefox RSN, but not fixing core bugs > we've caused simply because they don't affect Firefox doesn't seem > like a good thing for our developer community and only perpetuates > ideas that Mozilla doesn't care about other projects. > > (At no point do I want to demean the work some developers have done to > care about regressions from their checkins that only happen in other > products. There are several developers who not only care, but go out > of their way to fix those regressions. I also am well aware of non- > Firefox bugs getting fixed in the core and approved for landing. I'm > specifically talking about regressions that have been minussed where > we've broken other products and caused regressions in our platform.) > > If I'm way off base, please let me know, but this is the general > sentiment I've been getting from the bugs I watch. > > -Sam > > [1] http://www.mozilla.org/projects/#applications > [2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=382138#c30 > __________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ug-bosug/attachments/20080703/45f2ad99/attachment.html>
