Re: Why do we still need to include Qt widget in mozilla-central?

[Benjamin Smedberg]

This is now done, as of https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1282866
the Qt code has been removed from mozilla-central.

--BDS

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Douglas Turner  wrote:

> I am a peer.  Feel free to file a bug against me to remove this port. It
> served it's purpose. Anyone that wants to keep it alive can do it outside
> of m-c (long live dvcs).
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:35 PM Benjamin Smedberg 
> wrote:
>
>> I'm going to resurrect this old thread to ask: is anybody currently
>> triaging bugs the Core: Widget: Qt bugzilla component? I'm trying to find
>> owners for all of our active bugzilla components, and I'm not sure the
>> status of this.
>>
>> I would support us removing the widget/qt code from the tree unless we
>> have
>> clear ownership not only of reviewing patches, but the supporting
>> activities such as bug triage and some kind of continuous automation.
>>
>> --BDS
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Raine Mäkeläinen <
>> raine.makelai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I think that in this context we are talking about mozilla/widget/qt/*
>> > components and yes we're using those in our Gecko build. We don't use
>> > QWidgets for Sailfish Browser. User interface of the Sailfish Browser is
>> > written with Qt QML.
>> >
>> > There is more info in the embedding wiki [1] and Dmitry's blog [2].
>> > Rendering pipeline has changed after Dmitry's blog post but otherwise
>> quite
>> > close to the current state.
>> >
>> > [1]
>> > https://wiki.mozilla.org/Embedding/IPCLiteAPI
>> >
>> > [2]
>> > http://blog.idempotent.info/posts/whats-behind-sailfish-browser.html
>> >
>> > -Raine
>> >
>> > 2016-04-14 20:38 GMT+03:00 Henri Sivonen :
>> >
>> > > Added Raine Mäkeläinen, who has been committing to qtmozembed lately,
>> to
>> > > CC.
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Jim Blandy 
>> wrote:
>> > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:27 AM, Henri Sivonen <
>> hsivo...@hsivonen.fi>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Masayuki Nakano <
>> > masay...@d-toybox.com
>> > > >
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >> > So, my question is, why do we still have Qt widget in
>> > mozilla-central?
>> > > >> > What
>> > > >> > the reason of keeping it in mozilla-central?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> My understanding is that
>> > > >> https://git.merproject.org/mer-core/qtmozembed/ still uses it. As
>> we
>> > > >> are figuring out how to be more embeddable (see
>> > > >> https://medium.com/@david_bryant/embed-everything-9aeff6911da0 ),
>> > it's
>> > > >> probably a bad time to make life hard for an existing embedding
>> > > >> solution.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > This doesn't really answer the question. We can't have code in tree
>> > that
>> > > > isn't tested, and isn't used, and has nobody responsible for it.
>> > > >
>> > > > If someone is willing to fix it up and get it tested and included in
>> > the
>> > > > continuous integration process, then that's fine. But "someone might
>> > > want to
>> > > > use it in the future" can't possibly be a legit reason to keep
>> > > substantial
>> > > > bits of code in the tree.
>> > >
>> > > It looked to me like the code is being used *now*.
>> > >
>> > > Raine, does qtmozembed use the Qt widget code from mozilla-central?
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Henri Sivonen
>> > > hsivo...@hsivonen.fi
>> > > https://hsivonen.fi/
>> > >
>> > ___
>> > dev-platform mailing list
>> > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
>> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>> >
>> ___
>> dev-platform mailing list
>> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>>
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Why do we still need to include Qt widget in mozilla-central?

[Douglas Turner]

I am a peer.  Feel free to file a bug against me to remove this port. It
served it's purpose. Anyone that wants to keep it alive can do it outside
of m-c (long live dvcs).



On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:35 PM Benjamin Smedberg 
wrote:

> I'm going to resurrect this old thread to ask: is anybody currently
> triaging bugs the Core: Widget: Qt bugzilla component? I'm trying to find
> owners for all of our active bugzilla components, and I'm not sure the
> status of this.
>
> I would support us removing the widget/qt code from the tree unless we have
> clear ownership not only of reviewing patches, but the supporting
> activities such as bug triage and some kind of continuous automation.
>
> --BDS
>
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Raine Mäkeläinen <
> raine.makelai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think that in this context we are talking about mozilla/widget/qt/*
> > components and yes we're using those in our Gecko build. We don't use
> > QWidgets for Sailfish Browser. User interface of the Sailfish Browser is
> > written with Qt QML.
> >
> > There is more info in the embedding wiki [1] and Dmitry's blog [2].
> > Rendering pipeline has changed after Dmitry's blog post but otherwise
> quite
> > close to the current state.
> >
> > [1]
> > https://wiki.mozilla.org/Embedding/IPCLiteAPI
> >
> > [2]
> > http://blog.idempotent.info/posts/whats-behind-sailfish-browser.html
> >
> > -Raine
> >
> > 2016-04-14 20:38 GMT+03:00 Henri Sivonen :
> >
> > > Added Raine Mäkeläinen, who has been committing to qtmozembed lately,
> to
> > > CC.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Jim Blandy 
> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:27 AM, Henri Sivonen  >
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Masayuki Nakano <
> > masay...@d-toybox.com
> > > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > So, my question is, why do we still have Qt widget in
> > mozilla-central?
> > > >> > What
> > > >> > the reason of keeping it in mozilla-central?
> > > >>
> > > >> My understanding is that
> > > >> https://git.merproject.org/mer-core/qtmozembed/ still uses it. As
> we
> > > >> are figuring out how to be more embeddable (see
> > > >> https://medium.com/@david_bryant/embed-everything-9aeff6911da0 ),
> > it's
> > > >> probably a bad time to make life hard for an existing embedding
> > > >> solution.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This doesn't really answer the question. We can't have code in tree
> > that
> > > > isn't tested, and isn't used, and has nobody responsible for it.
> > > >
> > > > If someone is willing to fix it up and get it tested and included in
> > the
> > > > continuous integration process, then that's fine. But "someone might
> > > want to
> > > > use it in the future" can't possibly be a legit reason to keep
> > > substantial
> > > > bits of code in the tree.
> > >
> > > It looked to me like the code is being used *now*.
> > >
> > > Raine, does qtmozembed use the Qt widget code from mozilla-central?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Henri Sivonen
> > > hsivo...@hsivonen.fi
> > > https://hsivonen.fi/
> > >
> > ___
> > dev-platform mailing list
> > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
> >
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Why do we still need to include Qt widget in mozilla-central?

[Benjamin Smedberg]

I'm going to resurrect this old thread to ask: is anybody currently
triaging bugs the Core: Widget: Qt bugzilla component? I'm trying to find
owners for all of our active bugzilla components, and I'm not sure the
status of this.

I would support us removing the widget/qt code from the tree unless we have
clear ownership not only of reviewing patches, but the supporting
activities such as bug triage and some kind of continuous automation.

--BDS

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Raine Mäkeläinen <
raine.makelai...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think that in this context we are talking about mozilla/widget/qt/*
> components and yes we're using those in our Gecko build. We don't use
> QWidgets for Sailfish Browser. User interface of the Sailfish Browser is
> written with Qt QML.
>
> There is more info in the embedding wiki [1] and Dmitry's blog [2].
> Rendering pipeline has changed after Dmitry's blog post but otherwise quite
> close to the current state.
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Embedding/IPCLiteAPI
>
> [2]
> http://blog.idempotent.info/posts/whats-behind-sailfish-browser.html
>
> -Raine
>
> 2016-04-14 20:38 GMT+03:00 Henri Sivonen :
>
> > Added Raine Mäkeläinen, who has been committing to qtmozembed lately, to
> > CC.
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Jim Blandy  wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:27 AM, Henri Sivonen 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Masayuki Nakano <
> masay...@d-toybox.com
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > So, my question is, why do we still have Qt widget in
> mozilla-central?
> > >> > What
> > >> > the reason of keeping it in mozilla-central?
> > >>
> > >> My understanding is that
> > >> https://git.merproject.org/mer-core/qtmozembed/ still uses it. As we
> > >> are figuring out how to be more embeddable (see
> > >> https://medium.com/@david_bryant/embed-everything-9aeff6911da0 ),
> it's
> > >> probably a bad time to make life hard for an existing embedding
> > >> solution.
> > >
> > >
> > > This doesn't really answer the question. We can't have code in tree
> that
> > > isn't tested, and isn't used, and has nobody responsible for it.
> > >
> > > If someone is willing to fix it up and get it tested and included in
> the
> > > continuous integration process, then that's fine. But "someone might
> > want to
> > > use it in the future" can't possibly be a legit reason to keep
> > substantial
> > > bits of code in the tree.
> >
> > It looked to me like the code is being used *now*.
> >
> > Raine, does qtmozembed use the Qt widget code from mozilla-central?
> >
> > --
> > Henri Sivonen
> > hsivo...@hsivonen.fi
> > https://hsivonen.fi/
> >
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Why do we still need to include Qt widget in mozilla-central?

[Wolfgang Rosenauer]

Hi,

for quite some time I'm not really working with Qt anymore. So from my
very own perspective I have to say I cannot care about it anymore
realistically. So if other people are caring and want to become peers it
would even be better for everyone to remove myself from the module.

Wolfgang

Am 18.04.2016 um 22:54 schrieb Kevin Brosnan:
> I don't know if Oleg (Romaxa) is still interested in this work. He was
> doing work for Nokia's MeGo platform when the code was added. MeGo was
> shut down by Nokia. Sailfish OS is the continuation but I don't know of
> any attempt to get Firefox running on Sailfish. Wolfgang is a long time
> Mozilla/SUSE contributor. Doug was a lead engineer on the mobile project
> at the time of the code addition. Now he is managing a platform
> engineering group. I don't think he has any attachment to this code.
> CC'ed them on this thread for comment.
> 
> Kevin
> 
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Jim Blandy  > wrote:
> 
> Where is this work taking place? Would it be possible for you to work
> directly in mozilla-central?
> 
> Looking at the hg history of the the widget/qt subdirectory, all the
> changes I see there are Masayuki updating it for changes elsewhere, and
> people making tree-wide changes that have nothing to do with Qt.
> 
> So, like any other directory would, this code is creating work for other
> engineers. It needs to have someone responsible for it who actually
> cares
> whether it works or not.
> 
> According to the module list at:
> 
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/All
> 
> The owner of widget/qt is Oleg Romashin, and the peers are Wolfgang
> Rosenauer and Doug Turner. Is this information current?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Raine Mäkeläinen <
> raine.makelai...@gmail.com > wrote:
> 
> > I think that in this context we are talking about mozilla/widget/qt/*
> > components and yes we're using those in our Gecko build. We don't use
> > QWidgets for Sailfish Browser. User interface of the Sailfish
> Browser is
> > written with Qt QML.
> >
> > There is more info in the embedding wiki [1] and Dmitry's blog [2].
> > Rendering pipeline has changed after Dmitry's blog post but
> otherwise quite
> > close to the current state.
> >
> > [1]
> > https://wiki.mozilla.org/Embedding/IPCLiteAPI
> >
> > [2]
> > http://blog.idempotent.info/posts/whats-behind-sailfish-browser.html
> >
> > -Raine
> >
> > 2016-04-14 20:38 GMT+03:00 Henri Sivonen  >:
> >
> >> Added Raine Mäkeläinen, who has been committing to qtmozembed
> lately, to
> >> CC.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Jim Blandy  > wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:27 AM, Henri Sivonen
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Masayuki Nakano <
> >> masay...@d-toybox.com >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > So, my question is, why do we still have Qt widget in
> >> mozilla-central?
> >> >> > What
> >> >> > the reason of keeping it in mozilla-central?
> >> >>
> >> >> My understanding is that
> >> >> https://git.merproject.org/mer-core/qtmozembed/ still uses it.
> As we
> >> >> are figuring out how to be more embeddable (see
> >> >> https://medium.com/@david_bryant/embed-everything-9aeff6911da0
> ), it's
> >> >> probably a bad time to make life hard for an existing embedding
> >> >> solution.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > This doesn't really answer the question. We can't have code in
> tree that
> >> > isn't tested, and isn't used, and has nobody responsible for it.
> >> >
> >> > If someone is willing to fix it up and get it tested and
> included in the
> >> > continuous integration process, then that's fine. But "someone
> might
> >> want to
> >> > use it in the future" can't possibly be a legit reason to keep
> >> substantial
> >> > bits of code in the tree.
> >>
> >> It looked to me like the code is being used *now*.
> >>
> >> Raine, does qtmozembed use the Qt widget code from mozilla-central?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Henri Sivonen
> >> hsivo...@hsivonen.fi 
> >> https://hsivonen.fi/
> >>
> >
> >
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org 
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
> 
> 

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org

Re: Why do we still need to include Qt widget in mozilla-central?

[Kevin Brosnan]

I don't know if Oleg (Romaxa) is still interested in this work. He was
doing work for Nokia's MeGo platform when the code was added. MeGo was shut
down by Nokia. Sailfish OS is the continuation but I don't know of any
attempt to get Firefox running on Sailfish. Wolfgang is a long time
Mozilla/SUSE contributor. Doug was a lead engineer on the mobile project at
the time of the code addition. Now he is managing a platform engineering
group. I don't think he has any attachment to this code. CC'ed them on this
thread for comment.

Kevin

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Jim Blandy  wrote:

> Where is this work taking place? Would it be possible for you to work
> directly in mozilla-central?
>
> Looking at the hg history of the the widget/qt subdirectory, all the
> changes I see there are Masayuki updating it for changes elsewhere, and
> people making tree-wide changes that have nothing to do with Qt.
>
> So, like any other directory would, this code is creating work for other
> engineers. It needs to have someone responsible for it who actually cares
> whether it works or not.
>
> According to the module list at:
>
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/All
>
> The owner of widget/qt is Oleg Romashin, and the peers are Wolfgang
> Rosenauer and Doug Turner. Is this information current?
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Raine Mäkeläinen <
> raine.makelai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think that in this context we are talking about mozilla/widget/qt/*
> > components and yes we're using those in our Gecko build. We don't use
> > QWidgets for Sailfish Browser. User interface of the Sailfish Browser is
> > written with Qt QML.
> >
> > There is more info in the embedding wiki [1] and Dmitry's blog [2].
> > Rendering pipeline has changed after Dmitry's blog post but otherwise
> quite
> > close to the current state.
> >
> > [1]
> > https://wiki.mozilla.org/Embedding/IPCLiteAPI
> >
> > [2]
> > http://blog.idempotent.info/posts/whats-behind-sailfish-browser.html
> >
> > -Raine
> >
> > 2016-04-14 20:38 GMT+03:00 Henri Sivonen :
> >
> >> Added Raine Mäkeläinen, who has been committing to qtmozembed lately, to
> >> CC.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Jim Blandy 
> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:27 AM, Henri Sivonen 
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Masayuki Nakano <
> >> masay...@d-toybox.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > So, my question is, why do we still have Qt widget in
> >> mozilla-central?
> >> >> > What
> >> >> > the reason of keeping it in mozilla-central?
> >> >>
> >> >> My understanding is that
> >> >> https://git.merproject.org/mer-core/qtmozembed/ still uses it. As we
> >> >> are figuring out how to be more embeddable (see
> >> >> https://medium.com/@david_bryant/embed-everything-9aeff6911da0 ),
> it's
> >> >> probably a bad time to make life hard for an existing embedding
> >> >> solution.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > This doesn't really answer the question. We can't have code in tree
> that
> >> > isn't tested, and isn't used, and has nobody responsible for it.
> >> >
> >> > If someone is willing to fix it up and get it tested and included in
> the
> >> > continuous integration process, then that's fine. But "someone might
> >> want to
> >> > use it in the future" can't possibly be a legit reason to keep
> >> substantial
> >> > bits of code in the tree.
> >>
> >> It looked to me like the code is being used *now*.
> >>
> >> Raine, does qtmozembed use the Qt widget code from mozilla-central?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Henri Sivonen
> >> hsivo...@hsivonen.fi
> >> https://hsivonen.fi/
> >>
> >
> >
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Why do we still need to include Qt widget in mozilla-central?

[Jim Blandy]

Where is this work taking place? Would it be possible for you to work
directly in mozilla-central?

Looking at the hg history of the the widget/qt subdirectory, all the
changes I see there are Masayuki updating it for changes elsewhere, and
people making tree-wide changes that have nothing to do with Qt.

So, like any other directory would, this code is creating work for other
engineers. It needs to have someone responsible for it who actually cares
whether it works or not.

According to the module list at:

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/All

The owner of widget/qt is Oleg Romashin, and the peers are Wolfgang
Rosenauer and Doug Turner. Is this information current?




On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Raine Mäkeläinen <
raine.makelai...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think that in this context we are talking about mozilla/widget/qt/*
> components and yes we're using those in our Gecko build. We don't use
> QWidgets for Sailfish Browser. User interface of the Sailfish Browser is
> written with Qt QML.
>
> There is more info in the embedding wiki [1] and Dmitry's blog [2].
> Rendering pipeline has changed after Dmitry's blog post but otherwise quite
> close to the current state.
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Embedding/IPCLiteAPI
>
> [2]
> http://blog.idempotent.info/posts/whats-behind-sailfish-browser.html
>
> -Raine
>
> 2016-04-14 20:38 GMT+03:00 Henri Sivonen :
>
>> Added Raine Mäkeläinen, who has been committing to qtmozembed lately, to
>> CC.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Jim Blandy  wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:27 AM, Henri Sivonen 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Masayuki Nakano <
>> masay...@d-toybox.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > So, my question is, why do we still have Qt widget in
>> mozilla-central?
>> >> > What
>> >> > the reason of keeping it in mozilla-central?
>> >>
>> >> My understanding is that
>> >> https://git.merproject.org/mer-core/qtmozembed/ still uses it. As we
>> >> are figuring out how to be more embeddable (see
>> >> https://medium.com/@david_bryant/embed-everything-9aeff6911da0 ), it's
>> >> probably a bad time to make life hard for an existing embedding
>> >> solution.
>> >
>> >
>> > This doesn't really answer the question. We can't have code in tree that
>> > isn't tested, and isn't used, and has nobody responsible for it.
>> >
>> > If someone is willing to fix it up and get it tested and included in the
>> > continuous integration process, then that's fine. But "someone might
>> want to
>> > use it in the future" can't possibly be a legit reason to keep
>> substantial
>> > bits of code in the tree.
>>
>> It looked to me like the code is being used *now*.
>>
>> Raine, does qtmozembed use the Qt widget code from mozilla-central?
>>
>> --
>> Henri Sivonen
>> hsivo...@hsivonen.fi
>> https://hsivonen.fi/
>>
>
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Why do we still need to include Qt widget in mozilla-central?

[Raine Mäkeläinen]

I think that in this context we are talking about mozilla/widget/qt/*
components and yes we're using those in our Gecko build. We don't use
QWidgets for Sailfish Browser. User interface of the Sailfish Browser is
written with Qt QML.

There is more info in the embedding wiki [1] and Dmitry's blog [2].
Rendering pipeline has changed after Dmitry's blog post but otherwise quite
close to the current state.

[1]
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Embedding/IPCLiteAPI

[2]
http://blog.idempotent.info/posts/whats-behind-sailfish-browser.html

-Raine

2016-04-14 20:38 GMT+03:00 Henri Sivonen :

> Added Raine Mäkeläinen, who has been committing to qtmozembed lately, to
> CC.
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Jim Blandy  wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:27 AM, Henri Sivonen 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Masayuki Nakano  >
> >> wrote:
> >> > So, my question is, why do we still have Qt widget in mozilla-central?
> >> > What
> >> > the reason of keeping it in mozilla-central?
> >>
> >> My understanding is that
> >> https://git.merproject.org/mer-core/qtmozembed/ still uses it. As we
> >> are figuring out how to be more embeddable (see
> >> https://medium.com/@david_bryant/embed-everything-9aeff6911da0 ), it's
> >> probably a bad time to make life hard for an existing embedding
> >> solution.
> >
> >
> > This doesn't really answer the question. We can't have code in tree that
> > isn't tested, and isn't used, and has nobody responsible for it.
> >
> > If someone is willing to fix it up and get it tested and included in the
> > continuous integration process, then that's fine. But "someone might
> want to
> > use it in the future" can't possibly be a legit reason to keep
> substantial
> > bits of code in the tree.
>
> It looked to me like the code is being used *now*.
>
> Raine, does qtmozembed use the Qt widget code from mozilla-central?
>
> --
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivo...@hsivonen.fi
> https://hsivonen.fi/
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Why do we still need to include Qt widget in mozilla-central?

[Henri Sivonen]

Added Raine Mäkeläinen, who has been committing to qtmozembed lately, to CC.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Jim Blandy  wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:27 AM, Henri Sivonen  wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Masayuki Nakano 
>> wrote:
>> > So, my question is, why do we still have Qt widget in mozilla-central?
>> > What
>> > the reason of keeping it in mozilla-central?
>>
>> My understanding is that
>> https://git.merproject.org/mer-core/qtmozembed/ still uses it. As we
>> are figuring out how to be more embeddable (see
>> https://medium.com/@david_bryant/embed-everything-9aeff6911da0 ), it's
>> probably a bad time to make life hard for an existing embedding
>> solution.
>
>
> This doesn't really answer the question. We can't have code in tree that
> isn't tested, and isn't used, and has nobody responsible for it.
>
> If someone is willing to fix it up and get it tested and included in the
> continuous integration process, then that's fine. But "someone might want to
> use it in the future" can't possibly be a legit reason to keep substantial
> bits of code in the tree.

It looked to me like the code is being used *now*.

Raine, does qtmozembed use the Qt widget code from mozilla-central?

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivo...@hsivonen.fi
https://hsivonen.fi/
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Why do we still need to include Qt widget in mozilla-central?

[Nicholas Nethercote]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Masayuki Nakano 
wrote:
>
>
> So, my question is, why do we still have Qt widget in mozilla-central?
What the reason of keeping it in mozilla-central?

The same question can be asked of widget/uikit/, which I believe is for the
old, never-released port to iOS.

I was recently doing some refactoring in widget/ and I did my best to make
appropriate changes in widget/qt/ and widget/uikit/, but it's entirely
possible I (further?) broke stuff given that neither of them has any
compilation coverage.

Nick
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Why do we still need to include Qt widget in mozilla-central?

[Jim Blandy]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:27 AM, Henri Sivonen  wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Masayuki Nakano 
> wrote:
> > So, my question is, why do we still have Qt widget in mozilla-central?
> What
> > the reason of keeping it in mozilla-central?
>
> My understanding is that
> https://git.merproject.org/mer-core/qtmozembed/ still uses it. As we
> are figuring out how to be more embeddable (see
> https://medium.com/@david_bryant/embed-everything-9aeff6911da0 ), it's
> probably a bad time to make life hard for an existing embedding
> solution.
>

This doesn't really answer the question. We can't have code in tree that
isn't tested, and isn't used, and has nobody responsible for it.

If someone is willing to fix it up and get it tested and included in the
continuous integration process, then that's fine. But "someone might want
to use it in the future" can't possibly be a legit reason to keep
substantial bits of code in the tree.

Mercurial will keep all those sources around for perpetuity, so nothing is
ever really deleted; but we don't need to have it included in tip.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Why do we still need to include Qt widget in mozilla-central?

[Masayuki Nakano]

On 2016/04/12 20:27, Henri Sivonen wrote:

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Masayuki Nakano  wrote:

So, my question is, why do we still have Qt widget in mozilla-central? What
the reason of keeping it in mozilla-central?


My understanding is that
https://git.merproject.org/mer-core/qtmozembed/ still uses it.


Yeah, but they can clone m-c to their repository and it must be nicer 
since Qt widget code is broken in a lot of days under current our 
management.


> As we

are figuring out how to be more embeddable (see
https://medium.com/@david_bryant/embed-everything-9aeff6911da0 ), it's
probably a bad time to make life hard for an existing embedding
solution.


If we continue to support Qt widget, I'd like we keep Qt widget 
buildable. At least on mozilla-central and tryserver, building Qt widget 
everyday will prevent bustage.


# My post didn't suggest to drop Qt widget. The status, i.e., dropping 
or continuing, should be clearer.


--
Masayuki Nakano 
Manager, Internationalization, Mozilla Japan.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Why do we still need to include Qt widget in mozilla-central?

[Masayuki Nakano]

Hello.

mozilla-central has dropped a lot of platform supports after Gecko 1.9, 
especially OS/2 which was contributed by some volunteers.  However, 
there is still Qt widget. Looks like that nobody isn't working on Qt 
widget but when I reorganizing some code, like WidgetEvent related code, 
I still need to maintain Qt widget too. However, as far as I know Qt 
widget cannot be built without errors. Additionally, Qt widget is not 
implemented fully. For example, IME is never supported on Qt widget.


So, my question is, why do we still have Qt widget in mozilla-central? 
What the reason of keeping it in mozilla-central?


--
Masayuki Nakano 
Manager, Internationalization, Mozilla Japan.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform