Hi,
I have two different applications , both of them use gecko SDK version 2.0 for
embedded browser. On retina machine , one of the applications shows clear
retina supported text while other browser on other application shows blurred
text on retina machine.
I am not sure what is missing that i
On 30/05/14 5:22 pm, Matt Woodrow wrote:
Doing some profiling using my intel GPU suggests that my specific
regression has to do with uploading and drawing shadows. I'm seeing
~45% of the OMTC profile [1] in nsDisplayBoxShadowOuter::Paint vs ~8%
in the non-OMTC profile [2]. It's hard to tell e
I definitely agree with this, but we also need OMTAnimations to be
finished and enabled before any of the interesting parts of the UI can
be converted.
Given that, I don't think we can have this conversation at the expense
of trying to fix the current set of regressions from OMTC.
We may als
Thanks Avi!
I can reproduce a regression like this (~100% slower on
iconFade-close-DPIcurrent.all) with my machine forced to use the intel
GPU, but not with the Nvidia one.
This suggests it's very much a driver/hardware specific problem, rather
than a general regression with OMTC, which matc
On 05/28/2014 06:30 PM, Andrew Sutherland wrote:
== Proposed solution for exceptions / allowing connections
There are a variety of options here, but I think one stands above the
others. I propose that we make TCPSocket and XHR with mozSystem take
a dictionary that characterizes one or more ce
Given the number of firefox users that are choosing to use equivalent
technologies through flash today, I believe this is the right thing to
do. I definitely think we should have some form of UI that gives users
a choice and provides an opportunity for education though.
So go for it!
/ Jonas
On
I think we should shift the conversation to how we actually animate here.
Animating by trying to reflow and repaint with 60fps is just a bad idea. This
might work on very high end hardware, but it will cause poor performance on the
low-end Windows notebooks people buy these days. In other words
On 05/29/2014 07:12 PM, Brian Smith wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Andrew Sutherland <
asutherl...@asutherland.org> wrote:
It seems like you would be able to answer this as part of the scan of the
internet, by trying to retrieve the self-hosted autoconfig file if it is
available. I susp
So, wrt TART, I now took the time to carefully examine tab animation visually
on one system.
TL;DR:
- I think OMTC introduces a clearly visible regression with tab animation
compared to without OMTC.
- I _think_ it regresses more with tab close than with tab open animation.
- The actual throughp
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Andrew Sutherland <
asutherl...@asutherland.org> wrote:
> This is a good proposal, thank you. To restate my understanding, I think
> the key points of this versus the proposal I've made here or the variant in
> the https://bugzil.la/874346#c11 ISPDB proposal are:
On 05/28/2014 09:30 PM, Brian Smith wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Andrew Sutherland
I agree this is a safe approach and the trusted server is a significant
complication in this whole endeavor. But I can think of no other way to
break the symmetry of "am I being attacked or do I just
Seems like we will have to implement some sort allow invalid certs (it makes
me really sad that the system administrators and/or managers of tcl and
telefonica seem
slow to understand the risks of allowing MITM for user credentials).
I like Brian Smith's proposal to add some visual indicator w
On Thursday, May 29, 2014 1:30:20 AM UTC+3, somb...@gmail.com wrote:
> We do want
all users to be able to access their email, but not by compromising the
security of all users. ...
> This decision was made based on a risk profile of ...
So it looks like we know well enough what the best approach
On 2014-05-28, 9:07 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
Two more possible rationales:
1. The administrator is unwilling to pay for an SSL certificate and
unaware of low-cost or free SSL certificate providers.
2. The administrator has philosophical beliefs about CAs, or the CA
trust model in general, a
On 5/28/2014 8:30 PM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
> uncaught promise rejections using Promise.jsm will cause
> TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL.
Fantastic! Promise.jsm rocks!
> We intend to progressively extend this policy to:
> - DOM Promise (bug 989960).
Excellent, this will be a step forward in resol
On 2014-05-29, 1:20 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Wednesday 2014-05-28 21:03 -0700, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
static T inc(T& aPtr) { return IntrinsicAddSub::add(aPtr, 1); }
static T dec(T& aPtr) { return IntrinsicAddSub::sub(aPtr, 1); }
static T or_( T& aPtr, T aVal) { return __sync_fetch_an
Hi,
I would agree with the folks in #introduction that it's OK if it passes
on try, and that you can generally run the tests relevant to your work
if you're doing things locally. When in doubt about test coverage, you
should always be able to ask the person mentoring you and/or the bug in
que
17 matches
Mail list logo
