On 9/12/13 5:21 PM, Thomas Fletcher wrote:
Geoffrey Garen wrote:
Sure. We at University of Szeged who work on WebKitNix from this year
contributed many fixes to various part of WebKit: JavaScriptCore,
WebCore, Tools, ...
Thank you for this list. I started reading through it, but I noticed a high percentage of
patches that were port-specific build fixes or port-specific features like support for legacy
ARM chips. For example, "...on ARM traditional"
(<https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/142616>). Those patches are cost to core WebKit
development, not benefit.
I don't want to mis-interpret your statement here. Can you clarify
what you mean by "Those
patches are cost to core WebKit development, not benefit."
I cannot talk for Geoff but here is my take.
The WebKit code base has:
-Core features used by everyone.
-Core features used by many (e.g. curl, Texture Mapper, etc).
-Port code that is only useful for some people.
In the WebKit project, we value the first two. The port work is
necessary for everything to fit together, but that is not a contribution
to the project per say.
It is always good to refer to the project goals as it summarizes this
quite nicely: https://www.webkit.org/projects/goals.html
This being said, I think this thread is not longer very productive.
If you are interested in things like removing ancient CPU architecture,
better start a new thread.
Benjamin
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
