Daniel only responded to me personally (the strange way this list works I guess), so hopefully he won't mind a public response:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Daniel Zucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps one possible negative to this is that there would now be definite > resource requirements to host a port. Specifically, a new port would need > to both host a git server (requiring hardware and bandwidth), This is a reasonable point, but fortunately there are places like http://gitorious.org/ and http://github.com that can host open source Git repos for free. > and also actively migrate patches to this port as they are developed. True, but *someone* would have to do that work either way, and it is probably a better use of resources to have the person with a real stake in and understanding of the port doing the work rather than some of the other WebKit developers who have deeper concerns in the main codebase and the larger ports. > In the case of ports integrated directly into the main WebKit trunk, neither > of these are required: the port code would be hosted at webkit.org, and no > one needs to actively port patches over since they are maintained in the > main webkit trunk. See above point about maintaining ports. > Personally, I think the increased resource requirements in the case where > new ports all have their own git repository would make it difficult for > people without a lot of time or money to do new ports. Time will be required either way, believe you me ;) Money shouldn't be a big problem because of the above services. Plus if a port really becomes that popular it could always be merged back into the main repo. Regards, Ryan _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
