It seems that, yes, a model in which a patch to a given component would
need reviews by any one person in a specific pool of reviewers makes a lot
of sense. Even more so if the patch submitter doesn't have to figure out
who is in the pool.
Having a mechanism that supports a secondary, high-level r
On Fri, May 11, 2018, at 10:35 AM, Anthony Jones wrote:
> I have some specific requests for you:
>
> Let me know if you have specific Firefox related cases where Rust is
> slowing you down (thanks Jeff [7])
> Cross language inlining is coming - avoid duplication between Rust
> and C++ in
You may already know that the Low-Level Tools team support important tools and
code infrastructure. Lately we’ve also been improving our rustc/clang (LLVM)
story and I’d like bring everyone up to date.
There are a lot of important and interesting things going on:
* Michael Woerister and Nat
As the removal has rode the trains through Beta without issue I'm going to
remove AppCache over insecure contexts for stable as originally stated for
62.
The work is happening here:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1460478
Mike west did a wonderful job of adding web-platform-tests tha
In the CSSWG April F2F in Berlin this was extensively discussed and the
CSSWG allowed / recommended us to unprefix this despite changing the spec.
Just landed the change unprefixing this on inbound, let me know if you
see something broken because of it.
Thanks!
-- Emilio
On 3/26/18 9:16 AM
On May 10, 2018, at 06:47, Randell Jesup wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018, at 12:41 AM, Mark Côté wrote:
>>> How we might use blocking reviewers in our workflow is still open, but
>>> it could be used for training up reviewers, in which case the trainee
>>> would be a regular reviewer and the
Sorry for not following up on this earlier, Ehsan, somehow this slipped
through my inbox.
On 4/6/18 1:26 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
::-moz-selection seems like a fairly popular feature. PublicWWW claims
it's seen on a million sites:
https://publicwww.com/websites/%22%3A%3A-moz-selection%22/
Aft
>On Thu, Apr 26, 2018, at 12:41 AM, Mark Côté wrote:
>> How we might use blocking reviewers in our workflow is still open, but
>> it could be used for training up reviewers, in which case the trainee
>> would be a regular reviewer and the module peer/owner would be a
>> blocking reviewer.
>
>It'
I was behind on m.d.platform, I'm afraid.
tl;dr: This is Long, but in the end I support removal of
createObjectURL(MediaStream) in 62.
For anyone who wants to see why, read below. It does make some
important points to think about when considering removal, especially
about how to gauge usage.
>O
Meta tags provide equivalent behaviour to sending HTTP headers via the
“http-equiv” attribute.
Set-Cookie can be used to provide cookies to the user via this attribute:
However this behaviour isn’t restrictable via a Content Security Policy.
This gives an attacker the ability to change a users c
A W3C Proposed Recommendation is available for the membership of
W3C (including Mozilla) to vote on, before it proceeds to the final
stage of being a W3C Recomendation:
Web Driver
https://www.w3.org/TR/webdriver/
https://w3c.github.io/webdriver/webdriver-spec.html
Deadline for responses: T
A W3C Proposed Recommendation is available for the membership of
W3C (including Mozilla) to vote on, before it proceeds to the final
stage of being a W3C Recomendation:
Canonical EXI
https://www.w3.org/TR/exi-c14n/
Deadline for responses: Thursday, May 24, 2018
If there are comments you thi
12 matches
Mail list logo
