Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

On Friday 2016-05-13 13:10 -0700, Andrew McCreight wrote: > On 64-bit systems, pointers take 8 bytes of memory instead of 4. A lot of > the contents of memory is pointers. Thus a 64-bit build consumes more > memory for a given workload. It isn't as bad as, say, twice as much memory, > but it is

Re: Reverting to VS2013 on central and aurora

Since we didn't require SSE2 in 32-bit builds until this point, were floating-point results rounded unpredictably in those builds until now? On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: > I am talking about requiring SSE2. That is a larger (but still quite

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

The actual content of the page is not final, but I did include that recommendation in my request for a SUMO page. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1270221 --BDS On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Adam Roach wrote: > On 5/13/16 14:26, Ben Hearsum wrote: > >> I

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

On 5/13/16 14:26, Ben Hearsum wrote: I intend to make sure that Beta/Release/ESR is configured in such a way that users get the most up to date release possible. Eg: serve 10.6-10.8 users the latest 48.0 point release, then give them a deprecation notice. Presumably, the deprecation notice

Re: Reverting to VS2013 on central and aurora

I am talking about requiring SSE2. That is a larger (but still quite small) population, but the upside of being able to turn on SSE2 optimizations by default is an important benefit. I've discussed and confirmed this with Firefox product management. So yes, the plan of record is to require SSE2

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

We have considered this, but in the grand rollout plans for 64-bit Firefox it's low on the list. We're still dealing with Flash sandboxing/functional regressions as a blocker for wider rollout, and the next step is probably to progressively roll out win64 to new users before we consider anything

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

I didn't know we intended to drop support in 48. I just assumed 49 from reading the blog post and knowing that things were just landing in nightly. At this point, though, I don't want to do uplifts and would prefer that this ride the 49 train. --BDS On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Ben Hearsum

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 1:02 PM, wrote: > Why do you developers keep insisting breathlessly that 64-bit builds are > memory hogs? I'm a power user who has 3 windows and 1,565 tabs open. I have > a 4 GB laptop and a 16 GB desktop replaced a 6 GB desktop. I like to think

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 7:35:52 AM UTC-5, Ben Hearsum wrote: > On 2016-05-12 06:44 PM, khagar...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 11:47:15 PM UTC+2, Karl Tomlinson wrote: > >> Lawrence Mandel writes: > >> > >>> Do we need this criteria? > >>> > >>> RAM - Does it hurt to move an

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

Yes. The intention was 48.0. Given that that doesn't actually buy us anything at this point, dropping support in 49.0 is fine. Lawrence On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Ben Hearsum wrote: > Thanks for clarifying. It seems like the confusion came from the fact that > we

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

This was discussed in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1269811#c7. It's technically possible to do, but it didn't seem worthwhile on Nightly and Aurora. I intend to make sure that Beta/Release/ESR is configured in such a way that users get the most up to date release possible.

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

Thanks for clarifying. It seems like the confusion came from the fact that we had *intended* to drop support in 48.0, but it hadn't happened yet. And now we don't *intend* to drop support until 49.0? On 2016-05-13 02:55 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: Right now the code to disable 10.6 has

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

Nils, feel free to file a bug on this and cc bhearsum. I don't know how much work this would be. --BDS On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Nils Ohlmeier wrote: > > > On May 3, 2016, at 15:18, Adam Roach wrote: > > > > On 5/3/16 4:59 PM, Justin Dolske

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

Right now the code to disable 10.6 has landed only on nightly/49, and other bits are still blocked (see bug 1270217) because our MacOS builders (not the testers) are still running MacOS 10.7. As of this point, I expect that Firefox 48 will still run on 10.6-10.8 and the first release to drop

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

> On May 10, 2016, at 19:58, Lawrence Mandel wrote: > > The post states "Mozilla will end support for Firefox on OS X 10.6, 10.7, > and 10.8 in August, 2016." This means that we will end support with the > Firefox 48 release. i.e. Firefox 48 will not support OS X 10.6-10.8.

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

> On May 3, 2016, at 15:18, Adam Roach wrote: > > On 5/3/16 4:59 PM, Justin Dolske wrote: >> On 5/3/16 12:21 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: >> >>> * The update server has been reconfigured to not serve Nightly updates to >>> 10.6-10.8 (bug 1269811) >> >> Are we going to be showing

Re: Windows 7 tests in AWS

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Chris AtLee wrote: > I'm very happy to let you know that we've recently started running some of > our Windows 7 tests in AWS. Currently we're running these suites in Amazon > for all branches of gecko 49 and higher: > * Web platform tests +

Windows 7 tests in AWS

I'm very happy to let you know that we've recently started running some of our Windows 7 tests in AWS. Currently we're running these suites in Amazon for all branches of gecko 49 and higher: * Web platform tests + reftests * gtest * cppunit * jittest * jsreftest * crashtest Since these are now

Re: Intent to implement & ship: support for a subset of -webkit prefixed CSS properties & features

On 05/13/2016 10:49 AM, Jet Villegas wrote: > If I'm reading the dependency list correctly, we still plan to uplift to > 48 if we can get bug 1264905 fixed in time. Is that correct? bug 1264905's fix (a pref-unguarding) was just landed, as well. We could uplift both, if we *also* uplift bug

Re: Intent to implement & ship: support for a subset of -webkit prefixed CSS properties & features

If I'm reading the dependency list correctly, we still plan to uplift to 48 if we can get bug 1264905 fixed in time. Is that correct? --Jet On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Daniel Holbert wrote: > On 12/30/2015 10:40 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: > > Estimated or target

Re: Intent to implement & ship: support for a subset of -webkit prefixed CSS properties & features

On 12/30/2015 10:40 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: > Estimated or target release: > Firefox 46 (current Nightly), or 47 if we need to hold it back a > release to fix things. > > Preference behind which this will be implemented: > layout.css.prefixes.webkit Following up on this -- this feature

Re: Intent to deprecate: getUserMedia(cam+mic) to become all-or-nothing

On 5/12/16 7:26 PM, Mike Taylor wrote: On 5/12/16 2:48 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote: Our original intent behind those choices was to let users join a video conference as an "audio only" participant. Unfortunately, sites don't expect this behavior and often don't work right when the track is

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

On 2016-05-12 06:44 PM, khagar...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 11:47:15 PM UTC+2, Karl Tomlinson wrote: Lawrence Mandel writes: Do we need this criteria? RAM - Does it hurt to move an instance that has <4GB? Yes. OOM will be more common with 64-bit builds on systems with

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-5, khag...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 11:47:15 PM UTC+2, Karl Tomlinson wrote: > > Lawrence Mandel writes: > > > > > Do we need this criteria? > > > > > > RAM - Does it hurt to move an instance that has <4GB? > > > > Yes. OOM will

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

On Thursday, 12 May 2016 21:36:53 UTC+1, Chris Peterson wrote: > Yes. Flash and Silverlight both have 64-bit plugins that work in 64-bit > Firefox. Streaming video services will likely move their Firefox users > from Silverlight to Widevine this year, so Silverlight usage will > decline by