chromium is very much google controlled and will remain that way (contributing any patches that aren't commercially interesting to them is a major pain and often are met with rejection)
I don't see AOSP being any different
llvm was never really an apple project per se
Conversation
LLVM was as much of an Apple project as WebKit. Clang was entirely an Apple project from the start. Both of them transitioned to being controlled by a foundation not at all controlled by Apple. Various Google open source projects have gone through comparable transitions to that.
1
llvm wasn't even started at apple, and both llvm and webkit have been managed as actual open source projects with open contributions for as long as I can remember
with chromium and android this has *never* been the case
1
AOSP and Chromium are actual open source projects with actual open source contributions. Chromium is almost entirely developed in the open other than security fixes. AOSP is partly developed in the open and partly behind closed doors with code dumps (merges into AOSP) for those.
2
It doesn't matter where LLVM was started. Android wasn't started at Google. Google acquired it. Apple essentially acquired LLVM.
I'm really not sure how can you can claim that WebKit is a more collaborative project than Chromium. It's entirely not based on the actual reality.
1
because I contribute to webkit, and I'm well aware of how it is to contribute to chromium as well
1
result: those several KLOC of patches that I have to maintain downstream (rejected by google on the grounds "this is not important enough for us")
1
The same thing happens with the Linux kernel and most other open source projects. That's quite normal. Once you're an established contributor, you start having the influence to land things that the people responsible for the upstream project don't need themselves.
2
fwiw, in case of the ppc64le patches, not even a push from IBM helped; the patches have been lingering around for years now, with no issues with their quality
1
I've never seen any contribution in webkit where this would happen, you don't even need to go through a complicated CLA process and patches from individuals go in on regular basis (regardless of how much it matters to apple)
1
There's no complicated CLA for AOSP or Chromium, and no copyright assignment to contribute. I've regularly landed patches in AOSP. It has been drastically easier to get my patches reviewed and landed there than in the Linux kernel where I'd be unlikely to try contributing again.
and I did land patches in the Linux kernel before without any issues, by the way
It's the same standard Google CLA for all of their open source projects. You press accept on a form agreeing to license them your code under terms fairly equivalent to the Apache 2 license. Definitely nothing complex about it.
e.g. one such example chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src
the reasoning presented there is nothing more than an excuse (most of the existing conditionals are reused, and it adds no work for them, especially since they don't have to care if they break it)
2
i find relying on codebases like this rather shortsighted; right now, your requirements may align with theirs, but what happens once they don't? maintaining a fork on codebases like this is pretty much impossible for a small team
1
Show replies