<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 12/19/2016 2:34 PM, Ben Bucksch wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:4E7424BC-B698-4DEC-8290-01CC5F0C4179@beonex.com"
type="cite">Normally we don't do "me too", but given that rkent is
actually seriously arguing it: </blockquote>
<br>
I'm not arguing for it. What I am saying is:<br>
<br>
1) Forking or freezing Gecko is a choice that others have made
differently from us, so saying it is not a choice is unhelpful.<br>
<br>
2) We do not want to fork Gecko for a variety of reasons.<br>
<br>
3) If we believe what the Firefox folks are saying, then it is going
to be increasingly difficult to follow on our current path of
compiling Thunderbird as a variant of Firefox. At some point in the
future, forking will be our only choice. Since that is not a choice
that we want to be forced to make, then we need to be actively
moving away from compiling as a binary variant of Firefox.<br>
<br>
What I <i>have</i> argued for in the past is having the check-in
source of Thunderbird in comm-central be based on a "last known
good" revision of m-central, or even on known releases of m-c, with
someone actively managing the last know good revision, and working
on patches to allow that last known revision to advance. That is how
every other project with an upstream code source works, and I don't
understand why this is considered such a radical proposal here. If
we start using React, is someone going to demand that we build using
nightly developer updates of React instead of known releases?<br>
<br>
Really the only difference between Magnus' and my position is that
he is more optimistic than I am about how difficult it is going to
be to continue build on the Firefox code base. How about you, BenB?
Are you optimistic? I'm guessing not, so I would guess you are
closer to my position than Magnus'.<br>
<br>
:rkent<br>
</body>
</html>