在 2014年10月14日星期二UTC+8下午8时29分04秒，Boris Zbarsky写道：
> On 10/13/14, 11:28 PM, Yonggang Luo wrote:
>
> > If the XUL is truly dead, then mozilla community should consider to remove
> > it totally from the codebase
>
>
>
> Working on it. It's a big project. ;)
Well, indeed, i've seen so much simula
There is a regression in bugzilla.mozilla.org such that "review
granted", "feedback granted", etc., emails no longer contain the
comments made when granting the review.
This bug is tracked in:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1082887
Until this bug is fixed, if you get a "review grant
On 2014-10-14 10:14 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-10-14, 10:09 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for better, but I'm questioning
the fact
that download size would be affecting our growth. If the download size
of our competitors is not affecting theirs, why would it
- Original Message -
> From: "Mike Hommey"
> To: "Ehsan Akhgari"
> Cc: "Chris More" , dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org, "Daniel
> Veditz"
> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 7:09:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Breakdown of Firefox full installer
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:03:30PM -0400, Ehsan Ak
On 2014-10-14, 10:09 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:03:30PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-10-14, 6:53 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:11:01AM -0700, Chris More wrote:
Very interesting. When Firefox 4 was launched, it was 12MB. When
Australis was launc
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:03:30PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> On 2014-10-14, 6:53 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:11:01AM -0700, Chris More wrote:
> >>Very interesting. When Firefox 4 was launched, it was 12MB. When
> >>Australis was launched it was 28MB. Now, Firefox 33 is
Agreed. We should always strive to do the best that we possibly can and focus
our efforts on the areas with the greatest impact.
- Original Message -
> From: "Ehsan Akhgari"
> To: "Mike Hommey" , "Chris More"
> Cc: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org, "Daniel Veditz"
> Sent: Tuesday, Octobe
On 2014-10-14, 6:53 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:11:01AM -0700, Chris More wrote:
Very interesting. When Firefox 4 was launched, it was 12MB. When
Australis was launched it was 28MB. Now, Firefox 33 is 35MB. That's
almost a 200% increase. I did an A/B test last year when the
On 2014-10-14, 7:25 PM, Chris More wrote:
Great question and we've discussed the same thing last year. Last year, Chrome
was about the same size if not slightly bigger and that looks to be the same
case now. It is still worthwhile to understand about our installer size, the
driver of growth ea
Another example, if the omni.jar is not compressed the installer can compress
it about as well as if they were individual files and the minimal compression
currently used by omni.jar makes it so the installer is not able to compress
the omni.jar nearly as well which increases the installer size.
On 10/14/14 5:12 PM, Neil wrote:
Gregory Szorc wrote:
If you are looking for ideas on how to reduce download size, the way
omni.ja is included in the installer could be reduced by 4+ MB. Both
omni.ja and browser/omni.ja are zip archives, where each file has a
separate compression context. If yo
I found my previous analysis of the stub installer:
Stub installs without a Firefox profile and not installing on top of an
existing install (e.g. new installs) have a 90.32% success rate for Firefox 30
during the first 2 weeks starting the Friday after release.
Robert
- Original Message --
Gregory Szorc wrote:
If you are looking for ideas on how to reduce download size, the way
omni.ja is included in the installer could be reduced by 4+ MB. Both
omni.ja and browser/omni.ja are zip archives, where each file has a
separate compression context. If you treat all files from those two
Also, it may be "challenging" to contact the Chrome team and ask them for their
conversion rates to install by country, but I would imagine they are probably
facing similar challenges. They may also have other methods of distribution to
get around the constraints or have enough marketing $$ to o
Great question and we've discussed the same thing last year. Last year, Chrome
was about the same size if not slightly bigger and that looks to be the same
case now. It is still worthwhile to understand about our installer size, the
driver of growth each release, and if there is any impact.
Chr
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:11:01AM -0700, Chris More wrote:
> Very interesting. When Firefox 4 was launched, it was 12MB. When
> Australis was launched it was 28MB. Now, Firefox 33 is 35MB. That's
> almost a 200% increase. I did an A/B test last year when the installer
> was 22MB and there was a st
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Nicholas Nethercote
wrote:
>
> - tools/performance/pageload -- is this Talos(tp)? Bug 342089 added this.
> - tools/performance/startup -- has seen various more changes than all the
>to-be-removed stuff above; philor removed a
>
On 10/14/2014 5:12 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧
wrote:
From another point of view: Mozilla, for over a decade, provided a
relatively featureful toolkit for building UIs known as XUL. If the
argument is that we should be using HTML instead of X
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧
wrote:
> From another point of view: Mozilla, for over a decade, provided a
> relatively featureful toolkit for building UIs known as XUL. If the
> argument is that we should be using HTML instead of XUL, then wouldn't it
> make sense to provide a
On 10/14/14 2:20 AM, Robert Strong wrote:
* (Countries' average) Internet speed dramatically affected conversion
rates: 70% success in the fastest countries and 30% in the slowest
countries.
Note that these conversion rates are from download to hitting the first
run page and there are several f
The W3C is proposing a revised charter for:
Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) Working Group
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/2014/charter
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2014Sep/0010.html
Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through
next Monday, October
Very interesting. When Firefox 4 was launched, it was 12MB. When Australis was
launched it was 28MB. Now, Firefox 33 is 35MB. That's almost a 200% increase. I
did an A/B test last year when the installer was 22MB and there was a strong
correlation between average internet speed in a specific reg
Anybody has the right to submit patches. Try producing a patch and
asking ":terrence" for review.
- Kyle
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 9:14 AM, wrote:
> The confvars.sh in XULrunner doesn't have JSGC_GENERATIONAL enabled. As a
> result, XULrunner doesn't have GGC enabled although the code has been
On 10/13/2014 4:54 PM, Chris More wrote:
> For example, the win32 installer for Firefox 32 is 34MB.
Remember the days when Asa would jump all over people for breaking the
5Mb barrier? https://wiki.mozilla.org/Download_Size
-Dan Veditz
___
dev-platform m
On 10/13/2014 9:25 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
> Going forward, it would be interesting to see a dashboard track Firefox
> installer size every day (or show every changeset's delta on Treeherder).
We used to have http://arewesmallyet.com -- I found references to it as
late as a year ago but it seems
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> On 10/13/14 12:17 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
>>
>> tl;dr: I have a tool for generating regression-range links from
>> buildids. http://bsmedberg.github.io/firefox-regression-range-finder/
>>
>> Often times when we're investigating regressio
The confvars.sh in XULrunner doesn't have JSGC_GENERATIONAL enabled. As a
result, XULrunner doesn't have GGC enabled although the code has been there
since v31.
I've filed a bug in bugzila
(https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1063911) bug but haven't got any
feedback so far. Can som
On 14/10/14 11:58 AM, Bill McCloskey wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Dave Townsend wrote:
Is there any way to see the breakdown of which testsgot enabled. I'm
surprised to see mochitest-plain rise by 3456 yet mochitest-plain-e10s rise
by only 28. I'd love to find out which tests got tur
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Dave Townsend wrote:
> Is there any way to see the breakdown of which testsgot enabled. I'm
> surprised to see mochitest-plain rise by 3456 yet mochitest-plain-e10s rise
> by only 28. I'd love to find out which tests got turned on on one but not
> the other.
If yo
On 10/13/14 12:17 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
tl;dr: I have a tool for generating regression-range links from
buildids. http://bsmedberg.github.io/firefox-regression-range-finder/
Often times when we're investigating regressions (crashes, etc), we have
the build ID of the nightly where the regr
Is there any way to see the breakdown of which testsgot enabled. I'm
surprised to see mochitest-plain rise by 3456 yet mochitest-plain-e10s rise
by only 28. I'd love to find out which tests got turned on on one but not
the other.
Dave
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:57 AM, Andrew Halberstadt <
ahalbers
I looked at lzma2 a while ago for FFOS. I got pretty consistently 30% smaller
omni.ja with that. We could add it pretty easily to our decompression code but
it has slightly different memory behavior.
Andreas
On Oct 13, 2014, at 5:39 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> On 10/13/14 4:54 PM, Chris More
On 2014-10-13 8:48 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Note a significant amount of the omni.ja and browser/omni.ja data is
> used for jsloader/jssubloader data: 4744949 and 1560499 bytes from those
> files are that. These jsloader/jssubloader data are there for startup
> benefits on Firefox first run (if the
Test Informant report for 2014-10-12.
State of test manifests at revision f547cf19d104.
Using revision 9ee9e193fc48 as a baseline for comparisons.
Showing tests enabled or disabled between 2014-10-06 and 2014-10-12.
79% of tests across all suites and configurations are enabled.
Summary
---
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Working on it. It's a big project. ;)
Is there a tracker for this?
Cheers,
Dirkjan
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
On 10/14/14, 1:29 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
(2) While it would be helpful to have the recommendation contain
The "While" seems extraneous.
The rest looks great!
-Boris
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozill
On 10/13/14, 11:28 PM, Yonggang Luo wrote:
If the XUL is truly dead, then mozilla community should consider to remove it
totally from the codebase
Working on it. It's a big project. ;)
-Boris
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozill
Thanks in advance..
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/14/2014 02:09 AM, Kyle Huey wrote:
> The simplest way to break the installer down is by the files in
> it.
>
> e.g. http://khuey.pastebin.mozilla.org/6781501
For future reference:
> mozilla@KHUEY-19294 /c/dev/scratch $ wget
> ftp://ftp.mozilla
> -Original Message-
> From: dev-platform [mailto:dev-platform-
> bounces+rstrong=mozilla@lists.mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Chris
Peterson
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 9:25 PM
> To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> Subject: Re: Breakdown of Firefox full installer
>
> On 10/13/14 5:
Hi,
I landed earlier today, on mozilla-inbound, the death of the -remote
option on Linux (and some other Unix).
See http://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/8044e5199fe2
for the detailed rationale.
I invite third-party application developers to remove the part of their
command line
41 matches
Mail list logo
