On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:58:07 AM UTC+1, Jim Blandy wrote:
I think folks are being a little optimistic about the impact of having
MIPS code in tree. My experience has been that it usually does end up
being a distraction.
If we truly treat MIPS as a tier-3 platform - for
Please don't misunderstand --- I think the relationship can certainly be
a success. It'll just take more attention from the SpiderMonkey team
than they seem to expect.
On 02/13/2014 05:53 AM, Petar Jovanovic wrote:
I will disagree with the above, since having multiple forks instead of
one
Sounds like the sticking point is finding someone who will agree to
keep them alive. There's no point in turning them on if they're going
to be broken for weeks/months at a stretch.
From skimming the discussion, one thing that's unclear to me is if
we're talking about Windows shell builds, or
Having the work in-tree also makes it easier to use the standard Mozilla
tools to keep up: bug tagging, try servers, awfy, tbpl, etc. I think that's
a substantial win for the MIPS team (and the code they maintain) even if it
comes with utter disregard from the core SpiderMonkey hackers.
On Thu,
On 2/13/14, 12:18 PM, Steve Fink wrote:
Sounds like the sticking point is finding someone who will agree to
keep them alive. There's no point in turning them on if they're going
to be broken for weeks/months at a stretch.
This can be mitigated as per Valgrind by having per-commit builds as
5 matches
Mail list logo
