Mark Côté wrote:
> It was announced in May
> (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.tools/4qroY2Iia9I),
> linked to in this forum:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/qh5scX3Gk2U/xCWe8jrOAQAJ
I stand corrected, thanks. I would've thought that'd be put in
moz.dev.plann
Hi Joe,
I just want to publicly apologize for being sarcastic in my original
post to you.
I could've found a better voice and the frustration clouded my
judgement.
I'm sorry.
Edmund
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://
Mike Hoye wrote:
>
> Given that we've been talking about this stuff for years now, I think
> it's very clear that we haven't come to this point by "somebody at the
> top issuing an edict that they want something modern"; the decision to
> commit to Phabricator was ultimately announced on May 11th
Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> I'm responding at the top of the thread here so that I'm not singling out any
> particular response.
>
> We didn't make clear in this process how much work Mark and his team did
> ahead of the decision to gather feedback from senior engineers on both Selena
> and my team
Mike Connor wrote:
> (please direct followups to dev-planning, cross-posting to governance,
> firefox-dev, dev-platform)
>
>
> Nearly 19 years after the creation of the Mozilla Project, commit access
> remains essentially the same as it has always been. We've evolved the
> vouching process a num
Steve Fink wrote:
> On 12/20/2016 06:20 PM, Edmund Wong wrote:
>> Richard Barnes wrote:
>>
>>> Broadly speaking, this plan would entail limiting new features to
>>> secure
>>> contexts, followed by gradually removing legacy features from insecure
>>
Richard Barnes wrote:
> There's pretty broad agreement that HTTPS is the way forward for the web.
> In recent months, there have been statements from IETF [1], IAB [2], W3C
> [3], and even the US Government [4] calling for universal use of
> encryption, which in the case of the web means HTTPS.
>
Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> I'm also concerned that this spec does not seem to take into account
> multipath or multihoming, both of which seem relevant here. Say that I have
> a device with both a cellular and WiFi link and I attempt to use both of
> them in some fashion (depending on the remote IP
Mike Hoye wrote:
> On 2016-06-24 6:20 AM, Philip Chee wrote:
>>
>> I wonder what is necessary to set up an instance of MXR (for comm-*) on
>> our own server (or vps). I would guess PERL, hg, and a Linux VM.
> I've got the impression that comm-* has enough rocks to push up the
> legacy-stack hill al
Ms2ger wrote:
> On 22/06/16 20:30, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
>> Mozilla Cross-Reference, better known as MXR (https://mxr.mozilla.org), was
>> taken offline on June 13, 2016, to investigate a potential security issue.
>> After careful review of the codebase, we have decided to accelerate the
>> planne
Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> On 2015-10-23 2:17 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
>> It's a relatively easy matter to fix the first; the second is harder to
>> do for all contributors. I've been told it's a coming feature, but I've
>> been told this for a while.
>>
>> I also wonder why you have a peculiar insi
Ryan VanderMeulen wrote:
After a long wait, I am pleased to announce the final release of
MozillaBuild 2.0.0.
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/libraries/win32/MozillaBuildSetup-Latest.exe
Much has changed since version 1.11.0, hence the change in major version
number. It is STRONGL
Hi,
Recently I read Dave Townsend's thread about "Super-review,
what shall we do with you?" and realized there wasn't any
conclusion to that.
As a relative new dev, I think it is vital to have a clear
distinction as to when a sr is required. I've only done a
few patches that required sr (c-c st
13 matches
Mail list logo
