Bug 1623245 Comment 5 Edit History

Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.

Original comment by
on 
I think the order of Bugzilla dependencies here could be something like:

* Land Golden Gate (the bridged Sync engine bindings) in bug 1596322 first.
* Vendor a-s `sync15_traits` into m-c, bug 1626125.
* Move `BridgedEngine` into `sync15_traits` (bug 1626128), letting us implement `BridgedEngine`s in a-s.
* Vendor rusqlite (bug 1604678), which we need for `storage.sync`.
* Vendor our `storage.sync` Rust component (this bug? Another dependency?)
* Wire up our storage/sync bridge to the Rust component, and hook up the Rust component's engine to Golden Gate (this bug).

Does that sound about right, Mark? Like you said in the meeting, there are many ways to split this up.
Revision 1 by
on 
I think the order of Bugzilla dependencies here could be something like:

* Land Golden Gate (the bridged Sync engine bindings) in bug 1596322 first.
* Vendor a-s `sync15_traits` into m-c, bug 1626125.
* Move `BridgedEngine` into `sync15_traits` (bug 1626128), letting us implement `BridgedEngine`s in a-s.
* Vendor rusqlite (bug 1626323), which we need for our Rust component.
* Vendor our `storage.sync` Rust component, bug 1626506.
* Put all the pieces together: implement an XPCOM interface for sync + storage that calls into our Rust component (this bug!)

Does that sound about right, Mark? Like you said in the meeting, there are many ways to split this up.

Back to Bug 1623245 Comment 5