On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Brett Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Avi Drissman<[email protected]> wrote: > > I've heard people proclaim the principle of being able to copy a profile > > across systems as being a deciding factor for certain changes (e.g. the > > history epoch change). However, it doesn't seem to be universally held or > > obeyed, and I'm not sure to the extent to which it can be obeyed. So some > > questions: > > > > - Is "profile platform independence" a guiding principle? > > - To what extent do we work to make it reality? > > I don't think this is a guiding principle. We should do it when it's > reasonable. I think most places it is reasonable to do so. > > > - In the cases where it can't be kept (e.g. download folder path) should > we > > keep a copy for each platform? > > I don't think so. > > > - Is it worth rewriting today's code that doesn't conform (e.g. > extensions > > and themes which use full paths and platform path separators)? > > I don't think so, although I do wonder if full paths are necessary, > It was painful to remove all of the full paths from mozilla's profile. It was something people wanted because they wanted to be able to just copy their profile from one computer to another. Think of moving a profile from WinXP to Vista where the path to your windows profile changes. -darin > even if we're not worried about platform portability (not knowing > anything about what these are used for if there are any). > > Brett > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
