This has irked me before too. An obvious compromise would that the backout
proceeds, but it must include a test that would have failed on CI when the
patch was landed. This puts the onus on the owners of the broken
functionality to make sure that this supposedly-critical functionality has
basic smo
On 2014-10-15, 10:19 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote:
Jonas Sicking writes:
But any type of regression is cause for backout.
While I agree regressions are bad, this isn't the usual process.
If it were, then I wouldn't bother filing bugs, but merely back
out the offending change.
There is some kind
Jonas Sicking writes:
> But any type of regression is cause for backout.
While I agree regressions are bad, this isn't the usual process.
If it were, then I wouldn't bother filing bugs, but merely back
out the offending change.
There is some kind test for whether the regression costs more than
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Trevor Saunders
wrote:
> This morning tomcat decided to back bug 982842 and a bunch of dependant
> bugs out for breaking some of the gaia device tests. As I understand
> things, this is not the first time something like that has happened.
> However I think that wa
Hi everyone,
I posted in June [1] about a proposal that Ehsan and I have been working
on for adding named arguments to C++.
We have since received a fair amount of feedback on the proposal and
updated the proposal to address the feedback. We have formally submitted
our proposal to the C++ stand
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 05:36:00PM -0400, Ryan VanderMeulen wrote:
> On 10/15/2014 5:15 PM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >This morning tomcat decided to back bug 982842 and a bunch of dependant
> >bugs out for breaking some of the gaia device tests. As I understand
> >things, this is not th
On 15/10/2014 22:15, Trevor Saunders wrote:
However I think that was a mistake, it treated those tests as tier 1
when they pretty clearly do not meet the requirements in
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Sheriffing/Job_Visibility_Policy
...
The visibility rules exist in part to make sure that tier 1
tes
On 10/15/2014 5:15 PM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
Hi,
This morning tomcat decided to back bug 982842 and a bunch of dependant
bugs out for breaking some of the gaia device tests. As I understand
things, this is not the first time something like that has happened.
However I think that was a mistake,
Hi,
This morning tomcat decided to back bug 982842 and a bunch of dependant
bugs out for breaking some of the gaia device tests. As I understand
things, this is not the first time something like that has happened.
However I think that was a mistake, it treated those tests as tier 1
when they pret
On 2014-10-13, 10:35 PM, Kan-Ru Chen (陳侃如) wrote:
Jonas Sicking writes:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Kan-Ru Chen (陳侃如) wrote:
Jonas Sicking writes:
This will only be exposed to privileged and certified apps, right?
Other content that does createElement("webview") will simply get a
HTM
On 14/10/2014 21:53, L. David Baron wrote:
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
On Wednesday 2014-10-15 09:24 -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> "XUL" covers a variety of somewhat-unrelated features, including at least:
>
> 1) The XUL box model.
> 2) The built-in XUL elements (with C++ implementations). for
> example.
> 3) The overlay system.
> 4) XBL and the bindings pr
On 10/15/14 3:25 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Chris Hofmann wrote:
Now that we have a strategy for putting developer tools in there own release
What's that strategy? It could be very bad for us if Dev Tools didn't
"just work" for Web devs because they downloaded a
On 14/10/14 03:34 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> 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 appli
The Web APIs documentation meeting is Friday at 10 AM Pacific Time (see
http://bit.ly/APIdocsMDN 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 to
Currently, there is no specific strategy except leaning what makes up the size
of the installer and what is the driver of the increased size each release.
After we learn that and people know what is causing the increased size, we
should do some more A/B testing to see if a larger or smaller down
On 10/15/14, 9:03 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
The situation is that we have a bunch of unmaintained code that
complicates layout.
I feel like I should expand on this.
"XUL" covers a variety of somewhat-unrelated features, including at least:
1) The XUL box model.
2) The built-in XUL elements (
This is one of the reasons I started to breathe new life in the Chromeless
project[1], but with a grander scope this time around.
I’d like to facilitate a pragmatic migration route to building desktop apps
with XULRunner using only the latest Web technologies, including asm.js and
WebGL+WebVR.
On 10/15/14, 5:01 AM, glazou wrote:
w/o even trying to discuss with
them the situation, the possibilities, the alternatives, the ETA,
the transition plan.
The situation is that we have a bunch of unmaintained code that
complicates layout. And layout needs no extra complications; it has
enoug
On 10/15/14, 3:40 AM, glazou wrote:
Guys, you understand there is an ecosystem - even if it is a small one - of
companies relying on XUL for their businesses?
Yes, including Mozilla, via Firefox.
1. does Mozilla still care about us?
I can't answer this question. On a personal level, I car
- Original Message -
> From: "Neil"
> To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 4:17:21 AM
> Subject: Re: Breakdown of Firefox full installer
>
> Robert Strong wrote:
>
> >Another example, if the omni.jar is not compressed the installer can
> >compress it a
Gregory Szorc wrote:
If you treat all files from those two archives as a single compression
context
Aha, this was the bit I was overlooking. Sorry for the confusion.
--
Warning: May contain traces of nuts.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@
Robert Strong wrote:
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 incre
On 18:45, Mon, 13 Oct, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
On 10/13/14 5:42 PM, Andreas Gal wrote:
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 b
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 01:25:02PM +0300, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Chris Hofmann wrote:
> > Now that we have a strategy for putting developer tools in there own release
>
> What's that strategy? It could be very bad for us if Dev Tools didn't
> "just work" for Web d
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Chris Hofmann wrote:
> Now that we have a strategy for putting developer tools in there own release
What's that strategy? It could be very bad for us if Dev Tools didn't
"just work" for Web devs because they downloaded a non-developer
build, when Dev Tools "just w
Le mercredi 15 octobre 2014 10:18:19 UTC+2, Bobby Holley a écrit :
> I agree that the current state of affairs sucks for XUL embedders, and you
> have our sympathy. But if we translate that sympathy into strategy, we will
> lose much bigger battles.
I have the feeling "sucks" is a bit far from re
- Original Message -
> From: "Jonas Sicking"
> To: "Mike Hommey"
> Cc: "Chris More" , "Ehsan Akhgari"
> , "dev-platform"
> , "Daniel Veditz"
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 12:46:43 AM
> Subject: Re: Breakdown of Firefox full installer
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Mike Ho
Le 15/10/2014 04:09, Mike Hommey a écrit :
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:03:30PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Coming from a country with typically slow Internet connections, I strongly
disagree. We should absolutely strive to be better than the competition by
providing a smaller download size. On
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:40 AM, glazou wrote:
> 1. does Mozilla still care about us?
In terms of the goals of the organization, I think it's pretty clear that
XUL embeddings are not a priority - they're pretty orthogonal to the
Mozilla Mission (which is about the Internet and the Web - not des
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 7:09 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 affect ours?
> (and again, the premi
Le mardi 14 octobre 2014 14:29:04 UTC+2, Boris Zbarsky a écrit :
> 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. ;)
Seriously ?!?
Guys,
32 matches
Mail list logo
