On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Dave Townsend
wrote:
> Presumably it supports multiple reviews for a patch, in which case I think
> we're fine.
>
It does.
-Ekr
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:03 PM Gregory Szorc wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:51 PM, L. David Baron
> wrote:
> >
> > > On
Presumably it supports multiple reviews for a patch, in which case I think
we're fine.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:03 PM Gregory Szorc wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:51 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>
> > On Friday 2018-04-20 14:23 -0700, Kris Maglione wrote:
> > > For a lot of these patches, my
No, super-review has not really been a thing for some time, we should
remove documentation suggesting it is. That said we definitely have room
for this kind of architectural review. Webidl for example already uses
something like this.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:24 PM Kris Maglione wrote:
> I can'
Does it support the feedback flag?
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018, 5:03 PM Gregory Szorc wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:51 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>
> > On Friday 2018-04-20 14:23 -0700, Kris Maglione wrote:
> > > For a lot of these patches, my opinion is only really critical for
> > certain
> > >
On 09/04/18 07:25 PM, Francois Marier wrote:
> We intend to ship same-site cookies in Firefox 61.
This has now been uplifted and will be shipping in Firefox 60.
Status can be tracked on https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/SameSiteCookies.
Francois
___
de
I’m away from my computer until the morning, but I think we disabled the
super-review flag.
If Kris and David want to draft an architectural review policy that would be
useful, and we could set up the flags at the right level
> On Apr 20, 2018, at 23:51, L. David Baron wrote:
>
>> On Friday
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:51 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Friday 2018-04-20 14:23 -0700, Kris Maglione wrote:
> > For a lot of these patches, my opinion is only really critical for
> certain
> > architectural aspects, or implementation aspects at a few critical
> points.
> > There are other rev
On Friday 2018-04-20 14:23 -0700, Kris Maglione wrote:
> For a lot of these patches, my opinion is only really critical for certain
> architectural aspects, or implementation aspects at a few critical points.
> There are other reviewers who are perfectly qualified to do a more detailed
> review of
I can't remember the last time I saw a super-review request, but
it's still documented as a policy[1]. Is it still a thing? Do we
want it to still be a thing?
The reason that I ask is that I have a problem that I think I
might be able to solve by co-opting the super-review flag, but I
don't w
As the Firefox data engineering teams we provide core tools for using data
to other teams. This spans from collection through *Firefox Telemetry*,
storage & processing in our *Data Platform* to making data available in *Data
Tools*.
To make new developments more visible we aim to publish a quarter
Building on Nika's awesome work in bug 1444991, I just landed some
patches to remove nsIDOMEvent (bug 1455052). xpidl should now use
"webidl Event"; C++ should use "mozilla::dom::Event".
Please do not use Ci.nsIDOMEvent in JS code. I have fixed the m-c uses
I found.
If you need Event in a
Just a reminder that this is now less than a week away. Please be mindful
of any large/risky patches targeting 61 as time is running low to land them
before the soft freeze begins.
Thanks,
Ryan
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Ryan VanderMeulen <
rvandermeu...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
Solid tip from Xidorn. For the lazy, that command is:
./mach mozregression --launch b5a512aaef49 --repo try
On 2018-04-20 9:53 AM, Xidorn Quan wrote:
> FWIW, I always find that the easiest way to run some build is using
> mozregression's "Run a single build", which would take care of downloading
FWIW, I always find that the easiest way to run some build is using
mozregression's "Run a single build", which would take care of downloading,
unpacking, and creating a new profile for it.
In this case, you'd want to choose "try" and input changeset "b5a512aaef49".
- Xidorn
On Fri, Apr 20, 20
Hello everyone! I need some help gathering some real-world data about DLLs
that get loaded into Firefox on Windows (re bug 1435827). I have created a
test build that outputs runtime DLL information to a text file on disk, and
I'd like to see what results you get on your machine(s).
If you have al
15 matches
Mail list logo
