> What level of checking is done to ensure that commits to CVS are of an
> acceptable quality?
http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/ has the details of our process for
getting code checked into the tree. It is more rigorous than any other
free software project I've seen. I was told by a KDE developer at a
conference the other day that "oh, if it works, we check it in and fix
it later. We're pragmatists."
> switch to Mozilla soon. But Mozilla remains in a state of continuous
> brokenness in the many of its fundamental features. The Mozilla
Part of that's by design - it's a development platform. Bits will be
broken. New surprises every day. ;-) If you want unbrokenness, get a
well-tested and QAed stable release from a Mozilla distributor.
This is not an excuse for bad code; it's an observation on the
inevitable consequences of continuous development and living on the tip.
Gerv
