Hello Ehsan, 10 февр. 2014 г., в 20:19, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com> написал(а):
> Can you please point us to where this work is happening? I'm only aware of > this repository: <https://github.com/bitwiseworks/mozilla-os2> This is the right place. > Do you plan to move your development to trunk in the near future? The > Firefox 17 ESR code base that the mozilla-os2 repository is based on is > *ancient* and there will be a lot of changes when you try to merge with the > current trunk, which means that a lot of the fixes you're working on will be > obsolete by the time you do the merge, and you may need to repeat a lot of > work on top of the new trunk. Yes, of course, our plan is to rebase on FF24 when we decide that FF17 is kind of stable and then eventually switch to the trunk at some point. WRT ancientry, well, I think that FF10 was much «older» compared to FF17 than FF17 compared to FF24 if you look at platform-dependent parts. My main work now is port the new IPC stuff used for out-of-process business in modern Firefox and this is almost done. I don’t expect a lot to be changed in this regard in FF24. Other than that, the old OS/2 code (FS access, window management, 2d painting and such) still continues to work for us quite well. I rarely touch it (at least not for FF17). > Another issue, are you planning to upstream your work to Mozilla in the near > future? The current state of the OS2 port on trunk is unclear. We know that > it has probably been broken for at least the last 2 years due to a missing > TimeStamp implementation for OS2 and we have been carrying around this broken > code for a long time. As Gregory mentioned, I have a patch in bug 969757 to > remove this code completely, but obviously taking that patch doesn't make any > sense if you're going to move to trunk at some point in the near future. > (Note that I think some of the recent build system changes have started to > remove some OS2 bits from the new moz.build based build system, so porting > your work to trunk will probably require finding and fixing those cases as > well.) We’d wish to put our work upstream some day, definitely. I was complaining though that this is not a fast and easy process (given my past experience) so for our «daily» commits we prefer to use our own repository. And we also want to get a stable version first before pushing our changes upstream. The TimeStamp issue was already resolved as part of my FF17 job and it’s in our repo (just a simple solution for now). I also commit OS/2-specific original build system changes to that repo since we still use it (as I wrote in the previous message). It all started (I mean my participation involving creating a separate repo and such) when the Mozilla team decided to drop MOZ_IPC support (FF11 IIRC). This immediately broke the OS/2 build since the chromium based IPC parts were simply missing on OS/2 and it turned out to be a big piece of work, too much for the previous OS/2 maintainer. This is why we changed the plan of supplying small patches upstream used before that point. So I think the best is to leave the OS/2 bits in. I would also not mind if someone from the Mozilla team voted to help me later with pushing our changes upstream. -- keep cool, dmik _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
