On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Holger Freyther <[email protected]> wrote: > On Saturday 12 December 2009 22:42:34 Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> I think questioning someone's priorities in an open source project is >> generally not polite, unless there is some direct relationship between >> different tasks. For example, if someone introduce a new feature >> (let's say support for parts of the FooML language) and it had lots of >> bugs, it might be reasonable to ask them to fix some of the bugs >> before implementing more FooML features. But that doesn't seem to be >> the case here. >> >> Ultimately, I think it's up to the Gtk port maintainers and the folks >> maintaining v8 bindings to decide whether they want to support and >> maintain this functionality, and to review the patch as they see fit. > > Hello Mike, All, > > I'm not questioning your priorities. I'm solely looking at this from a > maintaining WebKit/GTK+ point of view. The problem with WebKit (or any big > software project) is that we are not done when landing a fundamental new > feature/configure option but it is really only the beginning. > > The questions are around, who is running a buildbot with this configuration > option, who will look at this buildbot, who will keep it building. In general > it is better to have less options (as these could be actually checked prior to > a release). So it is really not about me telling Mike what to do, but thinking > about what is maintainable for WebKit/GTK+.
Hi all, as one of the WebKitGTK+ maintainers I mostly agree with Holger here. As long as you are willing to provide support for this feature of the port, some sort of on-going testing, the patch itself is not overly intrusive (in the bug you hint that there might be no other way to do this than some big refactoring) and we manage to get it done without pushing the build system beyond unmaintainability I have nothing in principle with having this optional feature in. I'll CC to the bug and follow its progress. Xan > > E.g. we have an experimental GLib Unicode implementation, and saving the > storage size for ICU (12 mb when not statically linked) is a pretty good > reason for some. > > At the end of the day I feel responsible for the Gtk+ port and I would just > like to know why it makes sense for "us" to maintain it. > > regards > holger. > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev > _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
