There is a lot $(INSTALL) in remaining makefile.in,
I have strong intention to replace it with moz.build.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
On 11/14/2014 05:30 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
> Does it make sense to wait a release (meaning one week on trunk) here?
> Not judging this, just making sure you're aware of the dates.
Thanks -- yup, I'm aware that we're branching soon.
I don't think we'd gain much by holding off on this until the next
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote:
> As of sometime early next week (say, Nov 17th 2014), I intend to turn on
> support for the "object-fit" & "object-position" CSS properties by default.
>
> They have been developed behind the
> "layout.css.object-fit-and-position.enabled" pre
Here's the intent to ship thread, for reference:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/DK_AyuGfFhg
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
As of sometime early next week (say, Nov 17th 2014), I intend to turn on
support for the "object-fit" & "object-position" CSS properties by default.
They have been developed behind the
"layout.css.object-fit-and-position.enabled" preference. (The layout
patches for these properties are actually ju
Hi Olli, In general for FxOS devices, the thought is to let the OEMs decide
which language models they would like to ship with, preloaded. That way there
is a partner choice based on regions, but also the users could directly
download the packages they like. For now, since we are very early stag
Hi Andre, I suggest let's update the wiki for these sizes (as well as other
questions in this thread) so we can use that as a central place of info.
-Sandip
- Original Message -
> From: "Andre Natal"
> To: "smaug"
> Cc: "Sandip Kamat" , dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> Sent: Saturda
We added a capability to the Firefox build system that will ultimately
lead to speeding up the build and we need your help to realize its
potential.
Background
==
The Firefox build executes as a pipeline of stages called tiers. The
tiers are currently export -> compile -> misc -> libs
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Henri Sivonen
wrote:
> The part that's hard to accept is: Why is the countermeasure
> considered effective for attacks like these, when the level of how
> "active" the MITM needs to be to foil the countermeasure (by
> inhibiting the upgrade by messing with the in
FYI, due to a combination of PTO and other commitments, full-time sheriff
coverage is going to be spotty today. Please make an extra effort to keep an
eye on any pushes you make so we hopefully avoid any big bustage pile-ups right
before the weekend.
Thanks!
-Ryan
_
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> How so given that
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-loreto-httpbis-trusted-proxy20-01
>> exists and explicitly seeks to defeat the defense that TLS traffic
>> arising from https and TLS traffic arising from already-upgraded OE
>> http lo
> On 2014-11-13, at 21:25, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> Your argument relies on there being no prior session that was not
>> intermediated by the attacker. I’ll concede that this is a likely situation
>> for a large number of clients, and not all servers will opt for protection
>> against that sch
12 matches
Mail list logo
