Roadmap to support e10s/Electrolysis and Firefox 57

[brudgers]

Kazu-yamamoto, thank you for making such a wonderful tool. I enjoy using Firemacs every day. I am posting this as an issue because I could not find another contact point.

Mozilla has decided to change the plugin architecture to facilitate sandboxing and other features.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis

At the end of this year, Firefox 57 will be released without support for extensions using other technologies and without action, Firemacs will no longer be an option. It would be wonderful to see the program updated.

I can understand if support for Firemacs no longer engages your attention. I have created the Github organization https://github.com/firemacs/Firemacs as a possible alternative should that be the case.

If your plan is to transition Firemacs to e10s, I would be happy to see the Firemacs organization disappear and provide whatever help I can. All I really want is the ability to use Firemacs over the foreseeable future.

Thank you again, for making something I enjoy so much

[kazu-yamamoto]

@brudgers First of all, thank you for registering this issue.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to maintain Firemacs recently.
So, I would be happy if other people took over Firemacs.
Which do you think better, using the organization or giving the collaborator right to you?

[aaron-em]

Hello! I'm Aaron. Ben (@brudgers) and I have chatted briefly on this subject, and I intend at this time to assume the development role for an Electrolysis-compatible version of Firemacs. I haven't previously had the pleasure of using the present version of the add-on, but having discovered it thanks to Ben's mentioning on Hacker News that he uses it, I find myself delighted with the concept and anxious to enjoy it in versions of Firefox which no longer gracefully support XUL-based add-ons. Thank you so much for your work on Firemacs to date!

Given the options at hand, I think that if all others involved concur, I would prefer development proceed under the new Firemacs organization. It does not seem likely beneficial to the project that we proceed in a repository whose owner may be hampered in maintenance actions by time zone differences and prior commitments. Nor would we wish to presume further than necessary upon your already constrained time.

Based on our prior conversation, I imagine that @brudgers would intend to proceed in a role more concerned with administering the organization and maintaining repositories, as indeed evidenced by his impressive initiative thus far. It seems therefore a natural enough fit that I would take on the role of actually migrating Firemacs into Firefox's new extension API, a task whose potential scope initially inspired temerity but which, as I've considered it further, I've found more and more appealing to tackle.

[brudgers]

@kazu-yamamoto I want to avoid doing any injustice toward you and your creative work. I wish for you to be happy with the way Firemacs moves forward. I completely understand not having time and I appreciate how your work has made me happier. Your opinion matters to me. One of the features of a Github organization is flexibility for transferring project administration. On the other hand, there may be potential hurdles with Mozilla's administration regarding placement as a Firefox Add-on if the project moves forward as an organization. But I don't know because I am in unfamiliar territory. Over the long run, I think flexibility regarding administrative succession improves the odds of project sustainability. An organization means the project can be independent of my participation, your participation, etc. so long as there is a community.

…

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Kazu Yamamoto ***@***.***> wrote: @brudgers <https://github.com/brudgers> First of all, thank you for registering this issue. Unfortunately, I don't have time to maintain Firemacs recently. So, I would be happy if other people took over Firemacs. Which do you think better, using the organization or giving the collaborator right to you? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#36 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEXE1L_RyIg2H3Eu3boevdeQTjjavGOYks5r3sCRgaJpZM4NRCDo> .

[brudgers]

@kazu-yamamoto Just to be clear, the way I envision the organization is such that you may hold whatever roles and responsibilities you wish.

…

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 1:45 PM, ben rudgers ***@***.***> wrote: @kazu-yamamoto I want to avoid doing any injustice toward you and your creative work. I wish for you to be happy with the way Firemacs moves forward. I completely understand not having time and I appreciate how your work has made me happier. Your opinion matters to me. One of the features of a Github organization is flexibility for transferring project administration. On the other hand, there may be potential hurdles with Mozilla's administration regarding placement as a Firefox Add-on if the project moves forward as an organization. But I don't know because I am in unfamiliar territory. Over the long run, I think flexibility regarding administrative succession improves the odds of project sustainability. An organization means the project can be independent of my participation, your participation, etc. so long as there is a community. On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Kazu Yamamoto ***@***.***> wrote: > @brudgers <https://github.com/brudgers> First of all, thank you for > registering this issue. > Unfortunately, I don't have time to maintain Firemacs recently. > So, I would be happy if other people took over Firemacs. > Which do you think better, using the organization or giving the > collaborator right to you? > > — > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#36 (comment)>, > or mute the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEXE1L_RyIg2H3Eu3boevdeQTjjavGOYks5r3sCRgaJpZM4NRCDo> > . >

[kazu-yamamoto]

OK. The organization approach is appealing. So, just go ahead. :-)