Comm-central build system changes

Mark Banner mbanner at
Wed Mar 20 18:21:27 UTC 2013

On 20/03/2013 15:23, Mike Conley wrote:
> The plan in here is sound, but I expect resistance to the idea of 
> putting c-c beneath m-c. This idea bubbles up every few months, and it 
> meets resistance and gets shot down every time.
So I think it depends on what exactly we're talking about. Building the 
c-c repository underneath m-c as separate repos shouldn't get any 
opposition. That's what I want to achieve as number 1. It still has a 
few complexities and maybe isn't quite so good for developers, but is 
certainly a lot easier from a building and maintenance perspective.

Merging the c-c repo back into m-c is likely to have some resistance, 
but there's a lot more known now about working with multiple apps in the 
same repo. That is likely to make it easier, but I'd rather get the 
repos swapped around if we can first, and then have that discussion.
> I think I'd like to hear from release engineering to know how they 
> feel about these proposed changes.
I've mentioned it in the past, and from their perspective anything we 
can do to build more like FF does makes it simpler on their part as it 
would need less routes in the buildbot system.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4123 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <>

More information about the tb-planning mailing list