Git mirror of mozilla-central down
If you haven't noticed it before, mozilla-central's git mirror has stopped updating since some time yesterday after the IonMonkey merge. I've been working on fixing it since last night when I was notified of the problem, but that was a huge merge which makes it very hard to figure out what exactly went wrong. I'm making very slow progress on fixing it, and will update you all when it's back in a good shape again. Cheers, Ehsan ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Reftest manifest width/height conditions for mobile reftests
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:24 PM, jmaher wrote: > > I think we need to coordinate with the W3C testing people to come up > with a > > common cross-browser reftest size before we make a decision here. > > I had worked on trying to figure out what the other consumers of > reftests use back in the Spring and I didn't come up with anything > conclusive. I do know we need our height to be <=600. Do we have > real contacts (not newsgroups) of the other consumers so we can get a > decision made faster? > Elika, do you think there's any chance the W3C might want to set the maximum size of reftests to less than 600x600? If not, then we can change all our reftests to be 600x600 and we won't have to worry that later the W3C makes us resize them all again because they're still too big. Rob -- “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. ... If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others?" [Matthew 5:43-47] ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Reftest manifest width/height conditions for mobile reftests
On 09/12/2012 03:06 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:24 PM, jmaher wrote: I think we need to coordinate with the W3C testing people to come up with a common cross-browser reftest size before we make a decision here. I had worked on trying to figure out what the other consumers of reftests use back in the Spring and I didn't come up with anything conclusive. I do know we need our height to be<=600. Do we have real contacts (not newsgroups) of the other consumers so we can get a decision made faster? Elika, do you think there's any chance the W3C might want to set the maximum size of reftests to less than 600x600? If not, then we can change all our reftests to be 600x600 and we won't have to worry that later the W3C makes us resize them all again because they're still too big. No idea. I think there were some side-discussions of what to set it at, but no conclusions IIRC. I'll ask about it. ~fantasai ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Reftest manifest width/height conditions for mobile reftests
On 09/12/2012 03:29 PM, fantasai wrote: On 09/12/2012 03:06 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:24 PM, jmaher wrote: I think we need to coordinate with the W3C testing people to come up with a common cross-browser reftest size before we make a decision here. I had worked on trying to figure out what the other consumers of reftests use back in the Spring and I didn't come up with anything conclusive. I do know we need our height to be<=600. Do we have real contacts (not newsgroups) of the other consumers so we can get a decision made faster? Elika, do you think there's any chance the W3C might want to set the maximum size of reftests to less than 600x600? If not, then we can change all our reftests to be 600x600 and we won't have to worry that later the W3C makes us resize them all again because they're still too big. No idea. I think there were some side-discussions of what to set it at, but no conclusions IIRC. I'll ask about it. Thread at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2012Sep/0020.html I'll make sure we get answers from Apple/Opera/Google/Microsoft through their CSSWG reps if nothing else. ~fantasai ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Internationalization Working Group
On 09/06/2012 05:26 PM, L. David Baron wrote: W3C is proposing a revised charter for the Internationalization Working Group. For more details, see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2012Jul/0010.html http://www.w3.org/2012/07/i18n-charter/charter.html Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through next Friday, September 14. Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should say. The charter seems reasonable. I think we should send a statement of support for the i18nwg's activities, as I generally think they're very useful. Maybe something like Mozilla supports the continued work of the i18nWG and considers its contributions to W3C efforts to be valuable to the Web. or whatever ~fantasai ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Build environment bootstrapping
Building Firefox just got easier: curl https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/raw-file/default/python/mozboot/bin/bootstrap.py | python - If you run the above on OS X, Ubuntu, CentOS, Fedora, or Mint, it should automagically install all the dependent packages necessary to build Firefox! If you have time, please test this. If it doesn't work or is doing something wrong, please file a bug against Core : Build Config (probably not the long term component, but it's the place for now). A community contributor, kmm (they didn't reveal their name) is responsible for most of the Linux work. Yes, they spent hours installing and testing things on VMs! Jeff Hammel and Richard Newman also deserve kudos for doing reviews. B2G also deserves some credit for offering something similar to their developer base. The bootstrapper is still in its early stages. It's missing some obvious features, such as user prompting, support for Fennec dependencies, and more complete OS/distro coverage. But, it's better than nothing. I believe that tools like this help grow the community by lowering the barrier to entry. I love growing the community, so r? gps your patches and I'll happily review them. Code lives in the tree under python/mozboot/. Enjoy. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Adding hardware tokens to UA string
Hi All, For Firefox OS, we are getting requests from partners to add tokens to the UA string which identify the hardware device on which Firefox OS is running. There are at least reasons for this: * Some content providers strike deals with hardware manufacturers which allow devices made by the manufacturer to access content for free. One way that this is implemented is by looking for tokens in UA strings and serve content based on this. This is obviously terribly insecure and easy to spoof, however the hurdle is large enough that this is a "good enough" solution in many cases. I.e. the cost of developing a more secure solution, and the cost of losing users due to having to ask them to enter passwords etc is higher than the lost revenue due to people hacking the system by changing their UA string. * App stores only want to deliver applications to devices which they know will run on the device. Today many stores in our target market (Brazil) apparently do this by looking at hardware tokens in UA strings. This is a scenario where we strongly want people to do capability checking by using the DOM for reasons that we are all way too familiar with. However this isn't what stores do today and so we would have to convince them to switch to this system. Additionally capability checking isn't always perfect, since currently it's hard to detect performance metrics. Unfortunately I haven't been able to receive any concrete examples of either of these. Hence it's hard to evaluate the tangible benefits. However this apparently is a pretty wide-spread pattern in existing mobile devices. I don't have any hard data on how much this is done, but I did receive two examples: This is the UA sent by IE browser on a HTC device: Mozilla/5.0(compatible; MSIE 9.0;Windows phone OS 7.5; Trident/5.0; IEMobile/9.0; HTC; HD7 T9292) Here "HTC" is a token to identify the hardware manufacturer and "HD7 T9292" is a token which identifies the device. UA sent by a built in browser on a Samsung Galaxy device: Mozilla/5.0(Linux; U; Android 2.3.6;es-es; GT-S5830i Build/GINGERBREAD) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1 Here "GT-S5830i" identifies the device. Let me know what you think. / Jonas ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Adding hardware tokens to UA string
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > Hi All, > > For Firefox OS, we are getting requests from partners to add tokens to > the UA string which identify the hardware device on which Firefox OS > is running. > During the UA discussions for Firefox for Android we explicitly decided not to do this (after much debate and discussions of the merits). Why should Firefox OS be different? - Kyle ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
