On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Robert Strong wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Philipp Kewisch"
> > To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:49:35 PM
> > Subject: Re: Upcoming changes to Mac package layout, signing
> >
> > On 8/13/14 2:59 PM,
Extension manager docs on install locations shows that Mac has a system
install location
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/Installing_extensions
Robert
-Original Message-
From: dev-platform
[mailto:dev-platform-bounces+rstrong=mozilla@lists.mozilla.org] On
Behalf Of Robert S
On 8/12/14, 1:05 PM, Ben Hearsum wrote:
Without any changes, future versions of Firefox will cease to function
out-of-the-box on OS X 10.9.5 and 10.10.
Will it still be possible to run old nightlies, presumably by changing
something in system settings?
-Boris
___
On 8/27/14, 8:16 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 8/12/14, 1:05 PM, Ben Hearsum wrote:
Without any changes, future versions of Firefox will cease to function
out-of-the-box on OS X 10.9.5 and 10.10.
Will it still be possible to run old nightlies, presumably by changing
something in system settings?
- Original Message -
> From: "Philipp Kewisch"
> To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:49:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Upcoming changes to Mac package layout, signing
>
> On 8/13/14 2:59 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> >
> > On 8/13/2014 3:34 AM, Philipp Kewisc
On 8/13/14 2:59 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
>
> On 8/13/2014 3:34 AM, Philipp Kewisch wrote:
>>
>> Does this also affect binary extensions in any way? I'd imagine that
>> globally installed extensions would break signing if placed incorrectly.
>
> You cannot place anything in the Firefox bundle.
On 8/27/14, 5:05 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Right, but that should now be fixed right?
Hmm. Yes, it looks like this got fixed in the last few days. Excellent!
-Boris
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.o
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 05:03:21PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> On 2014-08-27, 4:54 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 01:27:16PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> >>It still does that when finding the moz.build files, right? How about doing
> >>something extremely simple such as: when
On 2014-08-27, 1:57 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 8/27/14, 1:46 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Ah, that's pretty weird. I would consider that a build system bug.
../mach build content/media/webaudio/compiledtest for example does the
right thing.
Well.
The codegen runs in dom/bindings, not dom/bindin
On 2014-08-27, 4:54 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 01:27:16PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
It still does that when finding the moz.build files, right? How about doing
something extremely simple such as: when you encounter a moz.build file,
record its path, build a ninja target fo
Paolo Amadini wrote:
The first changes to autocomplete will land in the next few weeks.
So do you have some bug numbers you can quote us?
--
Warning: May contain traces of nuts.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 01:27:16PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> It still does that when finding the moz.build files, right? How about doing
> something extremely simple such as: when you encounter a moz.build file,
> record its path, build a ninja target for the path, and when you found any
> SOU
> From: "Gian-Carlo Pascutto"
> To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 11:23:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Switching to Visual Studio 2013
>
> On 27/08/2014 17:30, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
>
> > I think our commitment to the Express versions should be "ensure it
> > works with
On Wednesday 2014-08-27 13:04 -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> 2a. I touched a C++ header file which is included all over the
> place. I anticipate that this change will break a specific set of
> .cpp files. Recompile *those files* right now. Do not recompile
> anything else. Do not link.
>
> It i
On 2014-08-27, 2:23 PM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
On 27/08/2014 17:30, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
I think our commitment to the Express versions should be "ensure it
works with whatever Microsoft makes it easy to get a hold of". We should
fix bugs that impact developers' ability to build with the v
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 8/27/14, 12:29 PM, Steve Fink wrote:
>
>> Enumerating some of them:
>>
>
> Let me add one:
>
> 6. I touched a file or files. Rebuild only the compiled-code tests that
> test this stuff.
+1. I do this constantly for the WebRTC code an
On 27/08/2014 17:30, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
> I think our commitment to the Express versions should be "ensure it
> works with whatever Microsoft makes it easy to get a hold of". We should
> fix bugs that impact developers' ability to build with the versions of
> the toolchain we support, but I hav
On 8/26/14 6:43 AM, Patrick McManus wrote:
I think it would make a lot of sense to have an explicit "low bandwidth
mode" that did stuff like this, instead of trying to address it piecemeal.
There's all kinds of stuff that can consume bandwidth, and if we think it's
a real concern then let's dire
On 8/27/14, 1:46 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Ah, that's pretty weird. I would consider that a build system bug.
../mach build content/media/webaudio/compiledtest for example does the
right thing.
Well.
The codegen runs in dom/bindings, not dom/bindings test.
So if I do
mach build dom/binding
On 2014-08-27, 1:30 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 8/27/14, 1:28 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Do you mean something beyond:
$ ninja -t dom/bindings/test
I have no idea what that command line does, but note that "mach build
dom/bindings/test" doesn't compile the binding tests, or even regenerate
the
On 8/27/14, 1:28 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Do you mean something beyond:
$ ninja -t dom/bindings/test
I have no idea what that command line does, but note that "mach build
dom/bindings/test" doesn't compile the binding tests, or even regenerate
the test files. I _really_ wish it did.
-Bori
On 2014-08-27, 1:02 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 8/27/14, 12:29 PM, Steve Fink wrote:
Enumerating some of them:
Let me add one:
6. I touched a file or files. Rebuild only the compiled-code tests
that test this stuff.
Do you mean something beyond:
$ ninja -t dom/bindings/test
?
__
On 2014-08-27, 10:55 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
On 8/27/2014 7:39 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
On 8/27/14, 10:22 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
There is additional cognitive load required to map a logical feature
into a set of directories. I would prefer this burden go away, as it
only breeds confusio
On 8/27/14 10:02 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 8/27/14, 12:29 PM, Steve Fink wrote:
Enumerating some of them:
Let me add one:
6. I touched a file or files. Rebuild only the compiled-code tests
that test this stuff.
Let's try to capture |mach build| workflows and requirements in an
etherpad
On 2014-08-27 12:29 PM, Steve Fink wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but I'm having a lot of trouble following this
thread. Can someone spell out exactly what use cases we're talking about
here? Because I've heard several. Enumerating some of them:
1. I touched a file or files. Compile everything withi
On 8/27/14, 12:29 PM, Steve Fink wrote:
Enumerating some of them:
Let me add one:
6. I touched a file or files. Rebuild only the compiled-code tests
that test this stuff.
-Boris
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https:
On 2014-08-27 1:53 AM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:49 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Seems to me there might be value in applying -style controls
to animated s *in general* -- not just for mobile.
That's a great idea!
Looks like that's https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_b
On 08/27/2014 07:55 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> On 8/27/2014 7:39 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
>> On 8/27/14, 10:22 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>>> Also, for the JS-centric use case you mentioned, if we invested in those
>>> parts of the build system, we could probably get full tree builds with
>>> no
On 8/27/2014 10:22 AM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
> On 26/08/2014 13:06, Mike Hommey wrote:
>
>> Relatedly, we need to ensure it's still possible to build Firefox with
>> the express version of MSVC (the free of charge one) corresponding to
>> the minimum MSVC version we support.
> It seems to work
On 2014-08-27 10:22 AM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
One issue related to the discussion in bug 914596 is that it's harder to
find the non-latest-version of the Express version. That is, if you
install Express now, you get SP3.
It's probably possible to get SP2 anyhow, but I couldn't easily find a
On 08/26/2014 12:52 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> Thanks for the update! Very helpful.
>
> For bug 1058695, it looks like bz/khuey are trying to rope in Nikhil
> to help - Nikhil, I don't know what the rest of your current workload
> looks like, but if you could help chase that bug down that would be
>
On 8/27/2014 7:39 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> On 8/27/14, 10:22 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>>
>> There is additional cognitive load required to map a logical feature
>> into a set of directories. I would prefer this burden go away, as it
>> only breeds confusion and a higher barrier to contributin
On 8/27/14, 10:22 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
There is additional cognitive load required to map a logical feature
into a set of directories. I would prefer this burden go away, as it
only breeds confusion and a higher barrier to contributing (new
contributors don't know these shortcuts so they sit
The Web APIs documentation meeting is Friday at 10 AM Pacific Time (see
http://bit.ly/APIDocsMeeting for your time zone). Everyone's welcome to
attend; if you're interested in ensuring that all Web APIs are properly
documented, we'd love your input.
We have an agenda, as well as details on how
On 26/08/2014 13:06, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Relatedly, we need to ensure it's still possible to build Firefox with
> the express version of MSVC (the free of charge one) corresponding to
> the minimum MSVC version we support.
It seems to work fine with MSVC2013 Express - I'm using it for
developmen
On 8/27/2014 6:52 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> On 8/27/14, 9:47 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>>
>> I interpret this this use case as building a related set of object
>> files for the purpose of quick/imprecise validation of changes to a
>> specific component. So what you really want is to build speci
On 8/27/14, 9:47 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
I interpret this this use case as building a related set of object files for the purpose
of quick/imprecise validation of changes to a specific component. So what you really want
is to build specific "modules." Is that accurate?
That sounds like a comp
> On Aug 27, 2014, at 5:18, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
>
>> On 2014-08-26, 11:54 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:34:29PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-08-26, 6:05 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:40:39AM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
>> Well, r
On 2014-08-26, 11:54 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:34:29PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-08-26, 6:05 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:40:39AM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Well, reading this thread, it doesn't seem mach build dir is broken for
the use p
On 8/25/2014 12:56 PM, Mark Banner wrote:
> So if I understand you right, we could switch to UnifiedComplete if we
> want to maintain multiple search sources (whilst using toolkit code)?
UnifiedComplete.js is the Places component that allowed us to replace
the autocompletesearch="urlinline history
On 27/08/14 11:00, Yonggang Luo wrote:
> I am looking for a way to turning a async function into
> sync.
You should really ask your questions on ask.mozilla.org, so that others
can find them, too.
If you repost your question over there, I'll try and provide a
comprehensive reply.
Cheers,
David
I am looking for a way to turning a async function into
sync.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
42 matches
Mail list logo
