On 2016-01-28 7:24 PM, Eric Rahm wrote:
Have the reject-on-idl-change-but-no-uuid-change scripts been updated on the hg
server?
Yes (on m-c and branches that merge to it.)
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mo
On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 2:56:19 PM UTC-8, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> 10 days and no objections. This is now the new rule! Please stop updating
> UUIDs when changing XPIDL interfaces.
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Ehsan Akhgari
> wrote:
>
> > Historically we have enforced updating
10 days and no objections. This is now the new rule! Please stop updating
UUIDs when changing XPIDL interfaces.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Ehsan Akhgari
wrote:
> Historically we have enforced updating the XPIDL interface UUIDs when you
> made any changes to it. This was needed because
On 01/18/2016 06:03 PM, Honza Bambas wrote:
On 1/15/2016 21:02, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2016-01-15 2:21 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
Has anyone measured recently whether there's still a significant perf
win to making IIDs 32-bit? If we stop using them as a versioning tool,
we could potentially relax
On 1/15/2016 21:02, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2016-01-15 2:21 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
Has anyone measured recently whether there's still a significant perf
win to making IIDs 32-bit? If we stop using them as a versioning tool,
we could potentially relax our uniqueness requirements, and save a lot
On 2016-01-15 7:44 PM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 04:28:13PM -0800, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
On 1/15/2016 1:21 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
Has anyone measured recently whether there's still a significant perf win
to making
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 04:28:13PM -0800, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧
> wrote:
> > On 1/15/2016 1:21 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
> >>
> >> Has anyone measured recently whether there's still a significant perf win
> >> to making IIDs 32-bit? If we stop usi
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
> On 1/15/2016 1:21 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
>>
>> Has anyone measured recently whether there's still a significant perf win
>> to making IIDs 32-bit? If we stop using them as a versioning tool, we
>> could
>> potentially relax our uniquenes
On 2016-01-15 1:27 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 1/15/16 10:58 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
* My proposal has no bearing on whether changes to XPIDL interfaces
needs to be considered as part of the uplift approval process, as such
changes can still have an impact on JS extension compatibility.
This
On 2016-01-15 2:21 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
Has anyone measured recently whether there's still a significant perf
win to making IIDs 32-bit? If we stop using them as a versioning tool,
we could potentially relax our uniqueness requirements, and save a lot
of comparisons on each QI. Addon-compat wo
On 1/15/2016 1:21 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
Has anyone measured recently whether there's still a significant perf win
to making IIDs 32-bit? If we stop using them as a versioning tool, we could
potentially relax our uniqueness requirements, and save a lot of
comparisons on each QI. Addon-compat wou
Has anyone measured recently whether there's still a significant perf win
to making IIDs 32-bit? If we stop using them as a versioning tool, we could
potentially relax our uniqueness requirements, and save a lot of
comparisons on each QI. Addon-compat would be tricky, but is potentially
solvable.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Ehsan Akhgari
wrote:
> Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
or cheers.
cheers!
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
On 1/15/16 10:58 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
* My proposal has no bearing on whether changes to XPIDL interfaces
needs to be considered as part of the uplift approval process, as such
changes can still have an impact on JS extension compatibility.
This should probably include Web IDL interfaces to
As the XPIDL module owner, I support this.
- Kyle
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Ehsan Akhgari
wrote:
> Historically we have enforced updating the XPIDL interface UUIDs when you
> made any changes to it. This was needed because of two reasons:
>
> * Backwards compatibility with binary extens
15 matches
Mail list logo
