Hi,
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 07:48:36PM +0100, Eddy Bruel wrote:
> To make IPC channels usable with Tokio, we'd have to take whatever low
> level IO primitive IPC channels use under the hood, and then reimplement
> the same logic that the existing IPC channels implement on top of this, but
> using
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 08:13:56PM -0500, Lars Bergstrom wrote:
> Are you saying that you'd like to see something between
> https://github.com/servo/servo/wiki/Roadmap, which gives what people
> are working on for the rest of the quarter, and the "next week"
> section of the status reporting?
Hi,
As a spare time outside contributor, it has become pretty much
impossible for me to stay informed of what's happening in Servo land,
since the meetings (and thus the meeting notes) have been cancelled;
while few things are going over the mailing list; and the traffic on IRC
is impossible to ke
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 06:53:47PM -1000, Brian Smith wrote:
> Olaf Buddenhagen wrote:
> > Sorry for being late to this discussion, but I feel the need to remind
> > everyone of the infamous OpenSSL licensing problem, i.e. the fact that
> > the SSLeay license it is (par
Hi,
Sorry for being late to this discussion, but I feel the need to remind
everyone of the infamous OpenSSL licensing problem, i.e. the fact that
the SSLeay license it is (partially) covered by is considered
GPL-incompatible by many -- including (among others) the Debian project.
This affects not
Hi,
I'm leaving for a longish vacation. Can someone please take care of
https://github.com/servo/ipc-channel/pull/95 and
https://github.com/servo/ipc-channel/pull/90 before they bitrot? Thanks.
-antrik-
___
dev-servo mailing list
dev-servo@lists.mozilla
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 08:17:47PM -0500, Lars Bergstrom wrote:
> But in this model, there's also "is this a failure from one of the N
> PRs before me?" which isn't a type of failure that is common (AFAIK)
> when contributing to OSS projects. Intermittents, especially when they
> lead to PR b
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 02:25:26PM +0100, James Graham wrote:
> On 04/08/16 12:24, Olaf Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 06:22:51PM +0200, Till Schneidereit wrote:
> > > I'm not concerned about code complexity, but about memory usage. Memory
> > >
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 09:41:00AM -0600, Jack Moffitt wrote:
> > My point is that I believe it's possible to create a setup doing full
> > pre-commit testing -- with all the advantages it brings over post-commit
> > testing -- while avoiding the scalability problems of the existing setup
> >
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 12:45:50PM -0700, Bobby Holley wrote:
> One fundamental problem with precommit testing the precise commit to be
> merged is that intermittents are more costly. You either have to hold up
> the pipeline while you retrigger the intermittent job, or throw away all of
> th
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:58:06PM +, Michael Howell wrote:
> Actually (though I've been busy implementing other things), I've been
> planning a somewhat different way to solve the scalability problems that I
> called "auto rollup."
[...]
In the absence of intermittent failures, this sho
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 12:45:24PM -0600, Jack Moffitt wrote:
> > Actually (though I've been busy implementing other things), I've been
> > planning a somewhat different way to solve the scalability problems that I
> > called "auto rollup."
[...]
> It does share one of the same drawbacks as t
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 11:03:27AM +0530, Manish Goregaokar wrote:
> At the time, Firefox's model wouldn't fit well because semantic
> conflicts during merge are an issue -- not actual git merge conflicts,
> but two changes which are compatible with their respective parents
> but not with eac
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 06:22:51PM +0200, Till Schneidereit wrote:
> I'm not concerned about code complexity, but about memory usage. Memory
> usage in many-tab scenarios is one of the measures where Firefox is still
> vastly superior to the competition, and I think we should aim for roughly
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 04:33:12PM +0530, Manish Goregaokar wrote:
> This sounds like a useful optimization; and it can be applied to the system
> after it is set up.
>
> I believe that the autoland model works like this anyway, though I'm not
> 100% sure.
>
> But we could do this on the Se
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 10:53:39AM +0200, Till Schneidereit wrote:
> I wonder to which extent this matters. I'm not aware of any real-world
> instances of the mythical cross-tab information harvesting attack. Sure, in
> theory the malvertising ad from one tab would be able to read information
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:57:22AM -0700, Bobby Holley wrote:
> In a bit more detail, there are basically 3 ways to manage CI:
> (1) The mozilla-inbound model (land possibly-untested stuff, run CI
> post-commit, perform backouts and close tree as necessary)
> (2) The bors/homu model (run the
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:20:17AM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> The thing is, I'm not a huge fan of merge commits in version control,
> especially for large projects.
[...]
> All I'm asking is that Servo and its immediately related projects
> consider changing their ways.
Please don't. This
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 02:21:46PM -0500, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 2/3/16 1:46 PM, Josh Matthews wrote:
> >https://github.com/servo/servo/wiki/Code-review
>
> Somewhere in there, one should read the commit messages too. Probably
> before reading the code. And if it's not clear from the co
19 matches
Mail list logo
