On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Jonas Sicking <jo...@sicking.cc> wrote: > > Given that people are already feeling pressure to fix up thunderbird > code when they land patches, I can only see that pressure increasing > when you don't even need to pull a separate tree.
That's more or less correct, though I'd rewrite it as the following: "Given that people are already feeling pressure to fix up thunderbird code when they land patches, we should make things easier by not making them need to pull a separate tree." On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Justin Dolske <dol...@mozilla.com> wrote: > +1. Last time this thread came up, I thought the guidance was that core > contributors (and especially MoCo employees) should explicitly *not* be > spending time on TB/SM code. Even in the "I'll just be nice and go a bit out > of my way", because those costs are undervalued and add up. Speaking for myself: even if I did ignore c-c, ignoring c-c doesn't come with zero cost. Because if I change an API used by thunderbird then a bug will be filed, and it will be marked as depending on the bug in which I changed the API, and I'll see that in bugmail, and then I'll read the bug, and feel bad that I inconvenienced someone -- but I'll be strong, I'll ignore that bad feeling -- and then maybe they'll need to needinfo me to ask about the change -- but maybe they should know better, and maybe I should ignore them again -- and if I get CC'd maybe I can just un-CC myself. In comparison, for the cases I've experienced, modifying the TB code is really simple. E.g. I'll have to modify 80 places in m-c code and then 4 places in c-c code. Numbers like that. Nick _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
