Re: Unified compilation is going to ride the train
On Friday 2014-11-28 10:12 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: The downside from doing so, though, is that non-unified build *will* be broken, and code purity (right includes in the right sources, mostly) won't be ensured. Do you think this is important enough to keep non-unified builds around? Another disadvantage here is that it will make adding or removing source files harder, because you'll have to clean up the accumulated nonunified bustage that shows up when files are shifted around between unified files. (This might be somewhat harder to fix a year or two later than it is when causing it.) -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: prebuilt libraries?
Gregory Szorc wrote: Please read http://www.conifersystems.com/whitepapers/gnu-make/. after a command fails, |make| does not delete the partially built output file .DELETE_ON_ERROR was added to address this. -- Warning: May contain traces of nuts. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Unified compilation is going to ride the train
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:57:56AM +0900, ISHIKAWA,chiaki wrote: On 2014/11/28 10:12, Mike Hommey wrote: Hi, A year ago, when unified compilation was introduced to speed up builds, a couple issues were raised and we conservatively restricted them out of aurora/beta/release/esr. A year later, it's time to revisit this decision, and since afaik we haven't had problems specific to unified compilation on nightlies, including for crash reports, we can assume the issues are either gone or didn't exist in the first place (one problem that comes to mind is bug 943695, and it probably isn't a problem in practice, although weird) I know a lot of people have burned non-unified builds now and then. That's an annoyance and a distraction for getting things done. If unified compilation rides up to beta and we don't see significant problems, I think we can disable all periodic non-unified builds and make the few builds that are always non-unified unified again (a few debug builds are this way). The downside from doing so, though, is that non-unified build *will* be broken, and code purity (right includes in the right sources, mostly) won't be ensured. Do you think this is important enough to keep non-unified builds around? Mike Can we debug unified build binary using gdb under Unixens? I mean the unified source is gone by the time the binary runs, and I wonder what the gdb would do to print the source lines. Of course, if gdb gets confused, we can create a non-unified binary to use source code debugging, etc. [I am talking about C++ side of the debugging.] But, if gdb gets confused, then not supporting non-unified build for C++ debugging sounds tough. People's opinion may vary, but I have seen many issues with C++ binary and so am not comfortable dropping non-unified build, if gdb and other debugger aids get confused. Of course, producing end-user binary wins by using unified compilation. I agree. Local builds have defaulted to unified builds for a year. If that was causing problems with debuggers, we'd have heard about it a thousand times already. Mike ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Unified compilation is going to ride the train
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 12:46:07AM -0800, L. David Baron wrote: On Friday 2014-11-28 10:12 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: The downside from doing so, though, is that non-unified build *will* be broken, and code purity (right includes in the right sources, mostly) won't be ensured. Do you think this is important enough to keep non-unified builds around? Another disadvantage here is that it will make adding or removing source files harder, because you'll have to clean up the accumulated nonunified bustage that shows up when files are shifted around between unified files. (This might be somewhat harder to fix a year or two later than it is when causing it.) Well, if files are shifted around in a what that breaks the build in a very hard to fix way, it's still possible to adjust moz.build in a way that avoids the files being shifted around to begin with. Mike ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Unified compilation is going to ride the train
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 06:29:49PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 12:46:07AM -0800, L. David Baron wrote: On Friday 2014-11-28 10:12 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: The downside from doing so, though, is that non-unified build *will* be broken, and code purity (right includes in the right sources, mostly) won't be ensured. Do you think this is important enough to keep non-unified builds around? Another disadvantage here is that it will make adding or removing source files harder, because you'll have to clean up the accumulated nonunified bustage that shows up when files are shifted around between unified files. (This might be somewhat harder to fix a year or two later than it is when causing it.) Well, if files are shifted around in a what that breaks the build in a very hard to fix way, it's still possible to adjust moz.build in a way that avoids the files being shifted around to begin with. Also note that even with both unified and non-unified builds being green, there are many ways a file shift can trigger build errors. Mike ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: prebuilt libraries?
Hi Gregory Please read http://www.conifersystems.com/whitepapers/gnu-make/. That is one of my go to articles for explaining why make sucks. I would not point people to this article as it is flawed. I won't go through the points it mentions. Some are relevant, others aren't, and some probably depend on the user's expectation. What I really criticize is that the authors are often simply ignorant. There are several examples of this, but the worst one is the case of recursive make. They cite Recursive Make Considered Harmful, yet they insist on using recursive make and then complain about how it leads to problems; ignoring existing solutions provided in RMCH. Another point to mention is that Conifer Systems sells a competing build system. They have a financial interest in making make look bad; in contrast to merely improving the State Of The Art. Best regards Thomas p.s. I'd rather like to stop the discussion soon, because it's quite OT at this point. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Unified compilation is going to ride the train
On 28/11/14 08:46, L. David Baron wrote: On Friday 2014-11-28 10:12 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: The downside from doing so, though, is that non-unified build *will* be broken, and code purity (right includes in the right sources, mostly) won't be ensured. Do you think this is important enough to keep non-unified builds around? Another disadvantage here is that it will make adding or removing source files harder, because you'll have to clean up the accumulated nonunified bustage that shows up when files are shifted around between unified files. (This might be somewhat harder to fix a year or two later than it is when causing it.) IMO, it seems worth maintaining a non-unified build, to minimize this obscure fragility that will otherwise tend to accumulate over time. We could reduce the infrastructure load by doing the non-unified build on a more occasional basis; perhaps once a day would be enough? We already have builds that (normally) happen once a day: nightlies. How about switching to a pattern where in addition to the nightly build, we also kick off a non-unified build for each platform on the same changeset? If that fails, we file a bug, and the normal expectation should be that such bugs can and will be fixed within a day (more or less), so the non-unified builds aren't left perma-broken. JK ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Unified compilation is going to ride the train
On 11/28/2014 11:06 AM, Jonathan Kew wrote: On 28/11/14 08:46, L. David Baron wrote: On Friday 2014-11-28 10:12 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: The downside from doing so, though, is that non-unified build *will* be broken, and code purity (right includes in the right sources, mostly) won't be ensured. Do you think this is important enough to keep non-unified builds around? Another disadvantage here is that it will make adding or removing source files harder, because you'll have to clean up the accumulated nonunified bustage that shows up when files are shifted around between unified files. (This might be somewhat harder to fix a year or two later than it is when causing it.) IMO, it seems worth maintaining a non-unified build, to minimize this obscure fragility that will otherwise tend to accumulate over time. We could reduce the infrastructure load by doing the non-unified build on a more occasional basis; perhaps once a day would be enough? We already have builds that (normally) happen once a day: nightlies. How about switching to a pattern where in addition to the nightly build, we also kick off a non-unified build for each platform on the same changeset? If that fails, we file a bug, and the normal expectation should be that such bugs can and will be fixed within a day (more or less), so the non-unified builds aren't left perma-broken. I agree, we should keep non-unified builds as it keeps our individual files valid from the C++ point-of-view. If this is taking too many resources, then I think it is acceptable to do it less frequently. What is identified by non-unified build is a problem of responsibility. Finding missing symbols is the responsibility of the person who is adding references without including headers. This is not at the charge of the person who is adding/removing files from a moz.build. I know I made these mistake multiple times, and having B2G builds reporting such issues was helpful at cleaning my patches at the earliest time. -- Nicolas B. Pierron ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Critical - XULRunner 34 fails with Couldn't load XPCOM in MacOSX
On 11/27/2014 10:38 PM, allencb...@gmail.com wrote: I've reported this in bugzilla. Any one has any workaround? I commented in the bug (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1105044). This is probably due to the MacOS v2 signing work which restructured the bundles. Since XULRunner is not maintained, you or other XULRunner users will probably have to debug this to figure out what's going on and propose a solution. --BDS ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Unified compilation is going to ride the train
On 2014-11-28 6:17 AM, Nicolas B. Pierron wrote: On 11/28/2014 11:06 AM, Jonathan Kew wrote: On 28/11/14 08:46, L. David Baron wrote: On Friday 2014-11-28 10:12 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: The downside from doing so, though, is that non-unified build *will* be broken, and code purity (right includes in the right sources, mostly) won't be ensured. Do you think this is important enough to keep non-unified builds around? Another disadvantage here is that it will make adding or removing source files harder, because you'll have to clean up the accumulated nonunified bustage that shows up when files are shifted around between unified files. (This might be somewhat harder to fix a year or two later than it is when causing it.) IMO, it seems worth maintaining a non-unified build, to minimize this obscure fragility that will otherwise tend to accumulate over time. We could reduce the infrastructure load by doing the non-unified build on a more occasional basis; perhaps once a day would be enough? We already have builds that (normally) happen once a day: nightlies. How about switching to a pattern where in addition to the nightly build, we also kick off a non-unified build for each platform on the same changeset? If that fails, we file a bug, and the normal expectation should be that such bugs can and will be fixed within a day (more or less), so the non-unified builds aren't left perma-broken. I agree, we should keep non-unified builds as it keeps our individual files valid from the C++ point-of-view. If this is taking too many resources, then I think it is acceptable to do it less frequently. The question is: what do we gain from doing that, technical purity aside? Note that as Mike mentioned, even with doing both unified and non-unified builds, you may still get build failures when adding/removing .cpp files, so keeping support for non-unified builds will not fix that issue. What is identified by non-unified build is a problem of responsibility. Finding missing symbols is the responsibility of the person who is adding references without including headers. This is not at the charge of the person who is adding/removing files from a moz.build. That is not the only failure mode though. You may for example get into a situation where Unified_foo0.cpp includes windows.h and that header #defines CreateEvent to something else, and you remove a file from the unified compilation causing a file from Unified_foo1.cpp to fall into Unified_foo0.cpp and break because of the CreateEvent macro that is now in effect in that translation unit. Also, as I have mentioned upthread, we have never been in a situation where each source file includes all of the headers that it requires, and unified builds only barely make that problem worse. I know I made these mistake multiple times, and having B2G builds reporting such issues was helpful at cleaning my patches at the earliest time. The point is, no amount of non-unified/unified build config combinations can detect scenarios such as the above. Cheers, Ehsan ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Unified compilation is going to ride the train
On 2014/11/28 18:26, Mike Hommey wrote: On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:57:56AM +0900, ISHIKAWA,chiaki wrote: On 2014/11/28 10:12, Mike Hommey wrote: Hi, A year ago, when unified compilation was introduced to speed up builds, a couple issues were raised and we conservatively restricted them out of aurora/beta/release/esr. A year later, it's time to revisit this decision, and since afaik we haven't had problems specific to unified compilation on nightlies, including for crash reports, we can assume the issues are either gone or didn't exist in the first place (one problem that comes to mind is bug 943695, and it probably isn't a problem in practice, although weird) I know a lot of people have burned non-unified builds now and then. That's an annoyance and a distraction for getting things done. If unified compilation rides up to beta and we don't see significant problems, I think we can disable all periodic non-unified builds and make the few builds that are always non-unified unified again (a few debug builds are this way). The downside from doing so, though, is that non-unified build *will* be broken, and code purity (right includes in the right sources, mostly) won't be ensured. Do you think this is important enough to keep non-unified builds around? Mike Can we debug unified build binary using gdb under Unixens? I mean the unified source is gone by the time the binary runs, and I wonder what the gdb would do to print the source lines. Of course, if gdb gets confused, we can create a non-unified binary to use source code debugging, etc. [I am talking about C++ side of the debugging.] But, if gdb gets confused, then not supporting non-unified build for C++ debugging sounds tough. People's opinion may vary, but I have seen many issues with C++ binary and so am not comfortable dropping non-unified build, if gdb and other debugger aids get confused. Of course, producing end-user binary wins by using unified compilation. I agree. Local builds have defaulted to unified builds for a year. If that was causing problems with debuggers, we'd have heard about it a thousand times already. Mike Aha, I noticed I have a following line in my MOZCONFIG file: ac_add_options --disable-unified-compilation Hmm... I think I have put it as soon as some trials with unified compilation occurred. I will wait and see. TIA ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Unified compilation is going to ride the train
On 28/11/14 14:36, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: The question is: what do we gain from doing that, technical purity aside? Note that as Mike mentioned, even with doing both unified and non-unified builds, you may still get build failures when adding/removing .cpp files, so keeping support for non-unified builds will not fix that issue. What is identified by non-unified build is a problem of responsibility. Finding missing symbols is the responsibility of the person who is adding references without including headers. This is not at the charge of the person who is adding/removing files from a moz.build. That is not the only failure mode though. You may for example get into a situation where Unified_foo0.cpp includes windows.h and that header #defines CreateEvent to something else, and you remove a file from the unified compilation causing a file from Unified_foo1.cpp to fall into Unified_foo0.cpp and break because of the CreateEvent macro that is now in effect in that translation unit. Also, as I have mentioned upthread, we have never been in a situation where each source file includes all of the headers that it requires, and unified builds only barely make that problem worse. I know I made these mistake multiple times, and having B2G builds reporting such issues was helpful at cleaning my patches at the earliest time. The point is, no amount of non-unified/unified build config combinations can detect scenarios such as the above. While it's true that there are failure scenarios that regular non-unified builds can not detect, I think the basic problem where a source file fails to #include (directly or indirectly) the headers that it needs, is common enough to be worth catching early. I've seen it happen any number of times, in both my patches and others'. I don't think we should allow that pattern to remain - and spread - in the tree, as it will become an increasing source of fragility and pain. JK ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Unified compilation is going to ride the train
On 11/28/2014 03:36 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: On 2014-11-28 6:17 AM, Nicolas B. Pierron wrote: On 11/28/2014 11:06 AM, Jonathan Kew wrote: On 28/11/14 08:46, L. David Baron wrote: On Friday 2014-11-28 10:12 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: The downside from doing so, though, is that non-unified build *will* be broken, and code purity (right includes in the right sources, mostly) won't be ensured. Do you think this is important enough to keep non-unified builds around? Another disadvantage here is that it will make adding or removing source files harder, because you'll have to clean up the accumulated nonunified bustage that shows up when files are shifted around between unified files. (This might be somewhat harder to fix a year or two later than it is when causing it.) IMO, it seems worth maintaining a non-unified build, to minimize this obscure fragility that will otherwise tend to accumulate over time. We could reduce the infrastructure load by doing the non-unified build on a more occasional basis; perhaps once a day would be enough? We already have builds that (normally) happen once a day: nightlies. How about switching to a pattern where in addition to the nightly build, we also kick off a non-unified build for each platform on the same changeset? If that fails, we file a bug, and the normal expectation should be that such bugs can and will be fixed within a day (more or less), so the non-unified builds aren't left perma-broken. I agree, we should keep non-unified builds as it keeps our individual files valid from the C++ point-of-view. If this is taking too many resources, then I think it is acceptable to do it less frequently. The question is: what do we gain from doing that, technical purity aside? Note that as Mike mentioned, even with doing both unified and non-unified builds, you may still get build failures when adding/removing .cpp files, so keeping support for non-unified builds will not fix that issue. Indeed, both will report errors, but not at the same time. What we gain is some kind of confidence that we might be using the right symbols, and not another one which appear to have the same name (similar to Bug 1105781) Note that issues similar to Bug 1105781 might still compile correctly based on the breadth first lookup strategy of namespaces. This problem is not unique to unified builds, only emphasized. What is identified by non-unified build is a problem of responsibility. Finding missing symbols is the responsibility of the person who is adding references without including headers. This is not at the charge of the person who is adding/removing files from a moz.build. That is not the only failure mode though. You may for example get into a situation where Unified_foo0.cpp includes windows.h and that header #defines CreateEvent to something else, and you remove a file from the unified compilation causing a file from Unified_foo1.cpp to fall into Unified_foo0.cpp and break because of the CreateEvent macro that is now in effect in that translation unit. Also, as I have mentioned upthread, we have never been in a situation where each source file includes all of the headers that it requires, and unified builds only barely make that problem worse. I would be happy to drop the non-unified builds if we have a way to verify that the symbol resolution are bound the same way in unified and non-unified builds. In fact, the only value provided by the non-unified build does not imply that we have to link anything. Only that we resolve the symbols in a translation unit. Would there be a way to instrument a compiler such that we can produce such reports in unified build and non-unified builds, and then compare them against each others? This would also be useful for class definitions in headers, to ensure that one class is always compiled the same way in all translation units. -- Nicolas B. Pierron ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Unified compilation is going to ride the train
On 2014-11-28 11:02 AM, Jonathan Kew wrote: On 28/11/14 14:36, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: The question is: what do we gain from doing that, technical purity aside? Note that as Mike mentioned, even with doing both unified and non-unified builds, you may still get build failures when adding/removing .cpp files, so keeping support for non-unified builds will not fix that issue. What is identified by non-unified build is a problem of responsibility. Finding missing symbols is the responsibility of the person who is adding references without including headers. This is not at the charge of the person who is adding/removing files from a moz.build. That is not the only failure mode though. You may for example get into a situation where Unified_foo0.cpp includes windows.h and that header #defines CreateEvent to something else, and you remove a file from the unified compilation causing a file from Unified_foo1.cpp to fall into Unified_foo0.cpp and break because of the CreateEvent macro that is now in effect in that translation unit. Also, as I have mentioned upthread, we have never been in a situation where each source file includes all of the headers that it requires, and unified builds only barely make that problem worse. I know I made these mistake multiple times, and having B2G builds reporting such issues was helpful at cleaning my patches at the earliest time. The point is, no amount of non-unified/unified build config combinations can detect scenarios such as the above. While it's true that there are failure scenarios that regular non-unified builds can not detect, I think the basic problem where a source file fails to #include (directly or indirectly) the headers that it needs, is common enough to be worth catching early. I've seen it happen any number of times, in both my patches and others'. I don't think we should allow that pattern to remain - and spread - in the tree, as it will become an increasing source of fragility and pain. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just trying to say that we have _never_ imposed this, either before or after we introduced unified builds. See the dependencies of https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=includehell for a lot of examples of those cases. Therefore, dropping support for non-unified builds neither makes things better or worse from this perspective. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Unified compilation is going to ride the train
On 2014-11-28 11:18 AM, Nicolas B. Pierron wrote: On 11/28/2014 03:36 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: On 2014-11-28 6:17 AM, Nicolas B. Pierron wrote: On 11/28/2014 11:06 AM, Jonathan Kew wrote: On 28/11/14 08:46, L. David Baron wrote: On Friday 2014-11-28 10:12 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: The downside from doing so, though, is that non-unified build *will* be broken, and code purity (right includes in the right sources, mostly) won't be ensured. Do you think this is important enough to keep non-unified builds around? Another disadvantage here is that it will make adding or removing source files harder, because you'll have to clean up the accumulated nonunified bustage that shows up when files are shifted around between unified files. (This might be somewhat harder to fix a year or two later than it is when causing it.) IMO, it seems worth maintaining a non-unified build, to minimize this obscure fragility that will otherwise tend to accumulate over time. We could reduce the infrastructure load by doing the non-unified build on a more occasional basis; perhaps once a day would be enough? We already have builds that (normally) happen once a day: nightlies. How about switching to a pattern where in addition to the nightly build, we also kick off a non-unified build for each platform on the same changeset? If that fails, we file a bug, and the normal expectation should be that such bugs can and will be fixed within a day (more or less), so the non-unified builds aren't left perma-broken. I agree, we should keep non-unified builds as it keeps our individual files valid from the C++ point-of-view. If this is taking too many resources, then I think it is acceptable to do it less frequently. The question is: what do we gain from doing that, technical purity aside? Note that as Mike mentioned, even with doing both unified and non-unified builds, you may still get build failures when adding/removing .cpp files, so keeping support for non-unified builds will not fix that issue. Indeed, both will report errors, but not at the same time. What we gain is some kind of confidence that we might be using the right symbols, and not another one which appear to have the same name (similar to Bug 1105781) Note that issues similar to Bug 1105781 might still compile correctly based on the breadth first lookup strategy of namespaces. This problem is not unique to unified builds, only emphasized. Bug 1105781 is a great example of an issue that has nothing to do with unified builds. ;-) The reason why these issues sometimes keep coming up with (non-)unified builds is that each configuration compiles a different amount of code in the same translation unit. That is in fact an argument _for_ dropping support for non-unified builds, as it reduces the number of build configurations we need to keep compiling. What is identified by non-unified build is a problem of responsibility. Finding missing symbols is the responsibility of the person who is adding references without including headers. This is not at the charge of the person who is adding/removing files from a moz.build. That is not the only failure mode though. You may for example get into a situation where Unified_foo0.cpp includes windows.h and that header #defines CreateEvent to something else, and you remove a file from the unified compilation causing a file from Unified_foo1.cpp to fall into Unified_foo0.cpp and break because of the CreateEvent macro that is now in effect in that translation unit. Also, as I have mentioned upthread, we have never been in a situation where each source file includes all of the headers that it requires, and unified builds only barely make that problem worse. I would be happy to drop the non-unified builds if we have a way to verify that the symbol resolution are bound the same way in unified and non-unified builds. https://code.google.com/p/include-what-you-use/ At the risk of repeating myself once more, this has nothing to do with unified builds, and we have never been in a good spot with regards to this. Also as someone who has run this tool many times on our code base, using it is a losing battle, people just keep adding more of these issues, because for the majority of people, if something compiles now, it's good enough from this perspective. In fact, the only value provided by the non-unified build does not imply that we have to link anything. Only that we resolve the symbols in a translation unit. Translation units do not matter for this purpose, source code files (for example .h files) do. Would there be a way to instrument a compiler such that we can produce such reports in unified build and non-unified builds, and then compare them against each others? This would also be useful for class definitions in headers, to ensure that one class is always compiled the same way in all translation units. Again, IWYU is the tool. ___ dev-platform
Re: Studying Lossy Image Compression Efficiency, July 2014
On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 7:34:35 AM UTC-7, Josh Aas wrote: This is the discussion thread for Mozilla's July 2014 Lossy Compressed Image Formats Study and the Mozilla Research blog post entitled Mozilla Advances JPEG Encoding with mozjpeg 2.0. It would help if you would use much more distinct colors in your graphs of the results. It can be very hard to keep track of which is which. You used two shades of red/purple, and three shades of blue/green/teal. That's a bizarre decision for graphs meant to be easily understood. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Default storage
Hi, Just a heads up that default storage has landed on m-c, bug 1083927. I'm posting to this list because there are some changes in the way how quota manager clients store data (mostly IndexedDB). Old structure: profile storage persistent temporary New structure: profile storage permanent temporary default Some scripts (especially for B2G) put stuff into profiles directly, so they have to be adjusted a bit. I expect that in most cases it should be enough to change: profile/storage/persistent to: profile/storage/permanent or profile/storage/persistent/chrome to: profile/storage/permanent/chrome For more details see the bug and sorry for any inconvenience. Jan ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
