<html><head></head><body>I would be fully supportive of landing with pref in gecko - disabled - sooner rather than later.<br>
<br>
There is code change, which means risk. But that risk is perhaps outweighed by testing disable codepaths early and often, and moving to smaller changes reviewed and landed more frequently.<br>
<br>
Fwiw,<br>
Lloyd<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">Jed Parsons <jparsons@mozilla.com> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail"><br />I think we can land the FxAccounts{.jsm,Client.jsm} bits with no worries<br /><br />I feel the other parts are risky because we affect the code path that Persona takes on native (through toolkit/identity/MinimalIdentity.jsm [1])<br /><br />And the gaia bits would require some kind of build config, since they can't access prefs; so that's unfortunately somewhat dissociated, which makes the new-features rule more complicated to follow on b2g.<br /><br />But as far as gecko goes, hearing Gavin chime in with some encouragement makes me wonder whether I'm being too conservative in my concerns about the changes to MinimalIdentity. Perhaps a pref would indeed be ok after all ... ?<br /><br />[1] I do wish we had a different name for that module<br /><br />----- Mensaje original -----<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;">De: "Gavin Sharp" <gavin@gavinsharp.com><br />Para:
"Jed Parsons" <jparsons@mozilla.com><br />CC: dev-fxacct@mozilla.org<br />Enviados: Lunes, 18 de Noviembre 2013 17:22:35<br />Asunto: Re: How to land code without landing code in b2g<br /><br />On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Jed Parsons <jparsons@mozilla.com> wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;">3. Work normally, but have a pref/build config for FXA on FXOS<br /><br />The latter (3) still seems risky to me.</blockquote><br />Why risky? This is typically how we hold features back. It's actually<br />a rule that new features must be easily disable-able to ride the<br />trains, though we don't always actually follow that rule in practice.<br /><br />Gavin</blockquote><br /><hr /><br />Dev-fxacct mailing list<br />Dev-fxacct@mozilla.org<br /><a href="https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxacct">https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxacct</a><br /></pre></blockquote></div><br>
lloyd - (on an tiny keyboard)</body></html>