Re: Proposal: New BMO Toolkit component for Notifications and Alerts

The component was added in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1013763 and it was pointed out that I was originally missing the prompt service from the list of related code so that has now been added to the description. I've done some bulk moves of open bugs so the component now has a

Re: using namespace

On 2014-05-20, 10:00 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: On 5/20/2014 8:37 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: FWIW, I argued against nested namespaces a few years ago (couldn't find a link to it through Google unfortunately) and people let me "win" that battle by allowing me to edit the coding style to prohibit n

Re: using namespace

On 5/20/2014 8:37 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: FWIW, I argued against nested namespaces a few years ago (couldn't find a link to it through Google unfortunately) and people let me "win" that battle by allowing me to edit the coding style to prohibit nested namespoaces in most cases

Re: Do we still need Trace Malloc?

On 2014-05-19, 10:25 AM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: It's used to get stacks within the deadlock detector, but I'm not sure if that's necessary, and it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to replace if it is necessary. You would think so, but I tried in bug 939231 and failed. Cheers, Ehsan

Re: using namespace

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 1:11 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > I wonder if the problem is that we're overusing namespaces (i.e., we > have too many of them or put many classes at places too deeply > nested in the namespace hierarchy)? Perhaps it makes sense to have > a guideline that names shouldn't f

Re: using namespace

On 2014-05-20, 9:11 PM, L. David Baron wrote: On Wednesday 2014-05-21 11:51 +1200, Robert O'Callahan wrote: On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Nicolas Silva wrote: Honestly, I don't mean to start a bikeshed about whether we should enforce strict rules about this project-wise, because I know that

Re: using namespace

On Wednesday 2014-05-21 11:51 +1200, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Nicolas Silva wrote: > > > Honestly, I don't mean to start a bikeshed about whether we should enforce > > strict rules about this project-wise, because I know that people have > > different tastes as t

Re: Intent to ship: Hyperlink Auditing ()

On 2014-05-20, 6:43 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: But I believe that that would be a pretty crappy private browsing feature which I don't think anyone here would argue for. Private browsing is mainly about giving you a new, throw-away, identity.

Re: using namespace

(2014/05/21 8:51), Robert O'Callahan wrote: Personally I find unified-build-related using-namespace errors are rare --- I've not encountered one yet. I'm not sure they're worth attempting to ameliorate. I wasted half a day recently due to a "using namespace mozilla::layers" in an unrelated fil

Re: using namespace

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Nicolas Silva wrote: > Honestly, I don't mean to start a bikeshed about whether we should enforce > strict rules about this project-wise, because I know that people have > different tastes as to whether writing "Size" is vastly better than > "gfx::Size". But I'd li

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: > On 05/20/2014 04:06 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: > > On 05/20/2014 03:50 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> I agree that there's a risk since this will make it super easy to get to > >> the core count. > >> I don't have the exact number but I suspect

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > > 2014-05-19 23:37 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier : > > >> >> >> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Benoit Jacob >> wrote: >> >>> +1000! Thanks for articulating so clearly the difference between the >>> Web-as-an-application-platform and other appl

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On 05/20/2014 04:06 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: > On 05/20/2014 03:50 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: >> I agree that there's a risk since this will make it super easy to get to >> the core count. >> I don't have the exact number but I suspect that very few machines will >> have more than 8 cores which makes

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On 05/20/2014 03:50 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > I agree that there's a risk since this will make it super easy to get to > the core count. > I don't have the exact number but I suspect that very few machines will > have more than 8 cores which makes them valuable for targeted marketing. (To be clear

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Gavin Sharp wrote: > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Eli Grey wrote: > >> Gavin: The fingerprinting entropy exposed by Rik's patch is actual >> *magnitudes* less than the entropy exposed on >> http://renderingpipeline.com/webgl-extension-viewer/ >> > I didn't

Re: Intent to ship: Hyperlink Auditing ()

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: >> But I believe that that would be a pretty crappy private browsing >> feature which I don't think anyone here would argue for. >> >> Private browsing is mainly about giving you a new, throw-away, >> identity. The throw-away part is why we don

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: > On 05/20/2014 03:13 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Gavin Sharp > wrote: > >> Arguing that the incremental fingerprinting risk > >> is negligible is reasonable, but you lose credibility if you suggest > >> it do

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: > On 5/20/2014 1:02 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> That is unlikely. The OS scheduler (I assume that will still exist), will >> take care of that problem. At the end, more work will be done which is all >> we're looking after. >> > > I'm not s

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On 05/20/2014 03:13 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Gavin Sharp wrote: >> Arguing that the incremental fingerprinting risk >> is negligible is reasonable, but you lose credibility if you suggest >> it doesn't exist. > > > I don't follow. Where did I say that the finger

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Gavin Sharp wrote: > I think it might help your case to acknowledge the often significant > difference between "technically possible, but expensive and > unreliable" and "extremely simple and 100% reliable". That something > is already technically possible does no

Re: Intent to ship: Hyperlink Auditing ()

On 2014-05-20, 2:25 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Justin Dolske wrote: On 5/16/14, 6:38 AM, Curtis Koenig wrote: Would this be disabled in Private Browsing? If not that might be perceived as negating one of the reasons users have for using that particular feature.

Re: Intent to ship: Hyperlink Auditing ()

On 2014-05-16, 9:39 AM, Tim Taubert wrote: Curtis Koenig wrote: Would this be disabled in Private Browsing? If not that might be perceived as negating one of the reasons users have for using that particular feature. Are sync XHRs and HTTP redirects disabled in private browsing? :) They are

Re: Recommended Try practices

On Friday, May 16, 2014 6:45:44 PM UTC+3, Ryan VanderMeulen wrote: > While working to track down various job backlogs and busted pushes in our CI > infrastructure, our team has observed some common anti-patterns in people's > TryServer usage that contribute to these problems. In order to try to h

Re: [Sheriffs] Update on sheriff-assisted checkin-needed bugs

It's an extra interruption that's going to me make me marginally more averse to mentoring bugs (in general, I would suggest that the mentee build the try syntax using the syntax builder). On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:46 PM, David Burns wrote: > It doesn't feel like a quick |hg qimport bz://12345

Re: [Sheriffs] Update on sheriff-assisted checkin-needed bugs

It doesn't feel like a quick |hg qimport bz://123456; hg qref -m "favourite try syntax>"; hg try| would really put a dent in a mentors productivity. If someone has already put in the effort to update the bug with try syntax why not just do 1 more step and push to try? David On 20/05/2014 19:33

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On 5/20/2014 1:58 PM, Eli Grey wrote: In practice, this is what parallel applications *currently* do as they have no other choice without this API. The OS scheduler can handle balancing the load fine to keep your system responsive, but it can't optimize your algorithm to more efficiently take adv

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: > And it also presumes that all of the CPUs are going to be more or less > available Please clarify what you are referring to by "more or less available". "more or less" makes me think you're referring to a fractional value, such as load.

Re: using namespace

On 5/20/2014 12:36 PM, Nicolas Silva wrote: So, I strongly encourage everyone to stop using "using namespace". I think I disagree about the "mozilla" namespace specifically. Since basically all of gecko does or will end up being in the mozilla namespace, I'd like to counter-propose that we s

Re: using namespace

On 5/20/14, 2:23 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: In XPConnect, we have "using namespace JS" everywhere. This is pretty important, because the JS rooting/handle API is very cumbersome to use otherwise. Note that if every file in a directory has the same "using namespace" declarations, then there is no

Re: Update on sheriff-assisted checkin-needed bugs

Can we get a stopgap solution in the mean time? How about this: If a sheriff comes across a checkin-needed bug without a try push, _and_ the most-recent comment in the bug includes a try-chooser string that the path author would have used if {s,}he had try access, the sheriff can push to try on th

Re: using namespace

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Nicolas Silva wrote: > Now that we have unified builds, writing "using namespace" in the global > scope of a .cpp file is almost as bad as writing it in a header. Regularly > build errors show up like this one: > https://tbpl.mozilla.org/php/getParsedLog.php?id=400

Re: Intent to ship: Hyperlink Auditing ()

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Justin Dolske wrote: > On 5/16/14, 6:38 AM, Curtis Koenig wrote: >> >> Would this be disabled in Private Browsing? If not that might be >> perceived as negating one of the reasons users have for using that >> particular feature. > > Private Browsing mode is about n

Re: using namespace

In XPConnect, we have "using namespace JS" everywhere. This is pretty important, because the JS rooting/handle API is very cumbersome to use otherwise. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-pla

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Eli Grey wrote: > Gavin: The fingerprinting entropy exposed by Rik's patch is actual > *magnitudes* less than the entropy exposed on > http://renderingpipeline.com/webgl-extension-viewer/ > I didn't claim otherwise - personally I don't think the fingerprinting ar

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On 5/20/2014 12:46 PM, Eli Grey wrote: Your worker threadpool will always stay the same size, but it will have different performance characteristics throughout it's lifetime based on varying system load. This is okay. The OS scheduler balances your load with everything else. If you want constant

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On 2014-05-15, 4:26 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Ehsan Akhgari mailto:ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 2014-05-13, 9:01 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: ... The problem is that the API doesn't really make it obvious that you're no

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

Gavin: The fingerprinting entropy exposed by Rik's patch is actual *magnitudes* less than the entropy exposed on http://renderingpipeline.com/webgl-extension-viewer/ I don't need the extra less-than-a-bit of entropy from my proposal to reliably fingerprint you, as the above URL + Panopticlick is a

Re: Intent to ship: Hyperlink Auditing ()

On 2014-05-20, 12:37 PM, Steve Fink wrote: On Fri 16 May 2014 07:45:22 AM PDT, Justin Dolske wrote: Private Browsing mode is about not storing _local_ data from your activities. It is explicitly not an "anti tracking" mode because that's extremely difficult-to-impossible to do robustly just on t

Re: Intent to ship: Hyperlink Auditing ()

On Fri 16 May 2014 07:45:22 AM PDT, Justin Dolske wrote: > On 5/16/14, 6:38 AM, Curtis Koenig wrote: >> Would this be disabled in Private Browsing? If not that might be >> perceived as negating one of the reasons users have for using that >> particular feature. > > Private Browsing mode is about no

using namespace

Now that we have unified builds, writing "using namespace" in the global scope of a .cpp file is almost as bad as writing it in a header. Regularly build errors show up like this one: https://tbpl.mozilla.org/php/getParsedLog.php?id=40010766&tree=Try What's awesome about these errors is that they

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

I think it might help your case to acknowledge the often significant difference between "technically possible, but expensive and unreliable" and "extremely simple and 100% reliable". That something is already technically possible does not mean that making it easier has no consequences. Arguing that

Enabling |fdatasync| for Thunderbird compilation under linux

Hi, This was discussed before somewhere (in bugzilla ?) although I could not find it now) I noticed a rather slow processing of POP3 e-mail fetching on a PC with scsi disk. At each message download, I can hear a clicking sound coming from a SCSI disk suggesting a large amount of disk activity. We

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On 5/20/2014 1:02 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: That is unlikely. The OS scheduler (I assume that will still exist), will take care of that problem. At the end, more work will be done which is all we're looking after. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue any more. When pointed out that the not

Re: Do we still need Trace Malloc?

2014-05-19 23:19 GMT-04:00 L. David Baron : > On Monday 2014-05-19 20:09 -0700, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:32 PM, L. David Baron > wrote: > > > Another is being able to find the root strongly connected components > > > of the memory graph, which is useful for finding

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

2014-05-19 23:37 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier : > > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > >> +1000! Thanks for articulating so clearly the difference between the >> Web-as-an-application-platform and other application platforms. >> > > It really surprises me that you would make this

Re: Update on sheriff-assisted checkin-needed bugs

Autoland should solve that use case :-) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=657828 On 19 May 2014 22:01:25, Jonas Sicking wrote: Try-from-bugzilla would be awesome! / Jonas On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: (Reducing the thread scope for the followup) One issue I

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Rik Cabanier > wrote: > >> > I don't see why the web platform is special here and w

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 06:35:49PM -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Rik Cabanier > wrote: > >> > I don't see why the web platform is special here and

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: >> > I don't see why the web platform is special here and we should trust >> > that >> > authors can do the right thing. >> >> I

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 06:35:49PM -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: >> > I don't see why the web platform is special here and we should trust that >> > authors can do the right thing. >> >> I'