+Clarkbw, who runs Dev Edition. Expansion of 64 bit was on hold pending the release of 47, where we had some critical sandboxing issues fixed and (conveniently) the Widevine CDM also hit that timeframe for video support.
It’s an interesting idea to hit developers, who are a bit savvier. We assume elimination of small OOM and JS performance gains, security overall will be a tradeoff. We need more users in-field before we start rolling win64 out by default to normal people. DevEdition is a potentially compelling hook. We were going to offer 64 selectively on the download page to some users in an A/B test to try to get numbers up. Ideally, we’d be able to sniff who could run it, since we don’t have a stub installer. > On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:20 AM, Lawrence Mandel <lman...@mozilla.com> wrote: > > + Javaun who should be able to fill in details about timing and what we want > to do with Win64 and why > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Ben Kelly <bke...@mozilla.com > <mailto:bke...@mozilla.com>> wrote: > On Jun 3, 2016 2:15 AM, "Jet Villegas" <jville...@mozilla.com > <mailto:jville...@mozilla.com>> wrote: > > > > We should offer both. > > If we get a net reduction in OOMs with 64-bit it seems to me we should make > that the default download link. > > In any case, we're not showing a 64-bit link anywhere now. Who should I > pester or where should I file a bug to get that fixed? > > Thanks. > > Ben > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org <mailto:dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > <https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform> > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
