On 10/29/13 4:42 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
In that case, we might as well switch to typedefs. JS engine hackers
are landing them in non-JS code anyway, because they're so used to it in
their own code (c.f. bug 884410 and bug 930782 at the very least, making
changes to DOM code to add typedef uses
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 03:47:40PM -0700, Aki Sasaki wrote:
> There *may* be l10n fallout here due to a |cd config; make| and a
> followup |hg update -r REVISION| afterwards (IIRC)... let's keep an eye
> on that.
Those builds should have a step running either configure or
config.status after hg up
There *may* be l10n fallout here due to a |cd config; make| and a
followup |hg update -r REVISION| afterwards (IIRC)... let's keep an eye
on that.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=925720 is on my radar but
between vcs-sync, releases, and merge week, haven't yet had a chance to
look at
Vidyo Room Change (today only:) "SFO-7I Independent"
--Jet
- Original Message -
From: "Jet Villegas"
To: "mozilla.dev.platform group" ,
"dev-plann...@lists.mozilla.org planning"
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 4:46:00 PM
Subject: MemShrink Meeting - October 29 @ 4:00 PM PDT
The next M
If you use |mach build| to build the tree, stop reading: this post does
not apply to you.
OK, so you run make, make.py, or mozmake to build the tree. Do you ever
perform partial tree builds? That is: |make -C dom| or |cd dom; make|.
If so, you may be impacted by a recent change to the build sy
On 9/18/13 4:20 PM, smaug wrote:
I don't care too much whether we use Handle/Rooted or typedefs but
consistency is always good.
In that case, we might as well switch to typedefs. JS engine hackers
are landing them in non-JS code anyway, because they're so used to it in
their own code (c.f. b
Hello all,
I would like to re-visit this.
I would like to look into stop running tests and talos for 10.7 and
re-purpose those machines as 10.6 machines.
* We have many more users on 10.6 than on 10.7.
* No new updates have been given to 10.6 since July 2011 [1]
* No new updates have been given to
On Oct 29, 2013, at 12:23 PM, Doug Turner wrote:
> Nothing. Just time. Patches accepted.
Not really? Last time I looked into this one of the problems was that
AlertsService exposes an alertfinished event (for when the notification goes
away) that we can’t implement when using NC, since NC not
"Dao" wrote in message
news:mjsdndtkqowatclpnz2dnuvz_omdn...@mozilla.org...
> On 12.10.2013 08:51, al...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> This applies to xp without acceleration:
>>
>> 1. Fx 15: grayscale aa in the urlbar
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=828073
>>
>> 2. Fx 18: bad cleartyp
Thanks for highlighting this, I've filed
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=932444 to request the description
be updated for the new, more-product-emcompassing use of the keyword.
On Oct 29, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Daniel Holbert wrote:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/describekeywords.cgi
> This wiki page: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Release_Tracking
> now picks up on the keyword 'feature' in your meta/tracking bugs.
FWIW, our bugzilla instance currently has a definition for this keyword
that is Fennec-specific:
feature
Keyword to enable tracking new features for Fennec N
Nothing. Just time. Patches accepted.
On Oct 29, 2013, at 6:26 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> Not mapping Web Notifications to native notifications seems very
> unfortunate, since it means Web apps can't use Web Notifications to
> get a native experience.
>
> Is there a summary of what exactly pr
Not mapping Web Notifications to native notifications seems very
unfortunate, since it means Web apps can't use Web Notifications to
get a native experience.
Is there a summary of what exactly prevents the use of native
notifications and why we shouldn't change the spec so that it can be
mapped to
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> I would reply "abstain" and "don't plan to implement" for this API and
> on the XML related specs in this batch.
Agreed. I have looked at that API too and had the same impression.
--
http://annevankesteren.nl/
___
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:28 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> W3C is proposing a data activity (an area of work)
...
> Please reply to this thread if you think
> there's something we should say.
Maybe it would make sense to abstain explicitly, since this Activity
doesn't seem particularly relevant to
On October 29, 2013 at 10:02:14 AM, Henri Sivonen (hsivo...@hsivonen.fi) wrote:
>
>On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Ralph Giles wrote:
>> On 2013-10-28 2:11 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>>> API for Media Resources 1.0
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-api-1.0/
>...
>> Thus I think we can be positive
On 2013-10-29 3:01 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-api-1.0/
>> ...
> I would prefer to abstain or otherwise not endorse this specification
Ok, thanks for reviewing it.
-r
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.moz
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Ralph Giles wrote:
> On 2013-10-28 2:11 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>> API for Media Resources 1.0
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-api-1.0/
...
> Thus I think we can be positive about this recommendation
I would prefer to abstain or otherwise not endorse this s
18 matches
Mail list logo
