Valid point
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Mark Finkle schrieb:
>
>> and maybe we should use it
>> for the FHR persistent ID since it's the same across installs and
>> profile-resets
>>
>
> I think it's a *very* bad idea privacy-wise to use the same ID across
> different
No doubt that things do not always go smoothly in practice. :) I was
describing the ideal that we should be striving for, and the general
process we should use to address problem cases (which will inevitably
occur).
As you point out, "escalation" can have some negative connotations,
but it doesn't
On 3/19/15 7:07 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
- encourage developers to say "no", either to high-priority features
or to review requests, when they can't cope – this includes emulating
bz' "I do not accept review requests at the moment";
Note that as of a week or so ago Bugzilla has a
On 3/19/15 3:16 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
That is in our implementation
Yes, because it was a security bug as specified, iirc.
Of course no one else implements searchParams at all, or plans to.
But as long as we're talking implementations, last I checked no one else
even implemented URLUt
Mark Finkle schrieb:
and maybe we should use it
for the FHR persistent ID since it's the same across installs and
profile-resets
I think it's a *very* bad idea privacy-wise to use the same ID across
different data collection services as that opens up all the scary
cross-system-user-tracking s
I've just landed patches to change our minimum supported target GCC version to
4.7.
This does not affect the host compiler as mentioned earlier in this thread.
That check is being added in bug 1142352.
Once the blocking issue there has been sorted, it looks like the minimum
version for the host
I have been faced a few times with reviews that languish several
weeks/months, despite direct communication with the reviewer, so indeed,
I definitely agree that we need to improve the situation.
I suspect that, in most cases, the lack of reviews were due to
succession of unexpected, high-priority
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> This is a difficult problem to discuss in the abstract.
>
> It should never be the case that you are "waiting for weeks/months" -
> you should either be getting reviews within a week (at worst), or be
> getting responses saying "can't spend ti
>>> I think it would be weird if the
>>> invariants that hold for and new URL() don't hold for Location.
>>
>> That's already the case for tons of invariants.
>
> I don't think so. The various component attributes all return what you'd
> expect.
I still think the value added by making window.loc
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 3/18/15 2:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> Other than the location object tracking a URL you might not expect
>
> And not having .searchParams.
That is in our implementation and still an outstanding issue in the
specification.
> And h
10 matches
Mail list logo
