Re: ICU proposing to drop support for WinXP (and OS X 10.6)

[Margaret Leibovic]

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Henri Sivonen  wrote:

>
> What bothers me the most regarding size of what we ship is
>
>  * Failure to make the most out of compression (i.e. Zopfli) before
> objecting to the addition of new things stuff. I've brought this up
> before, but just now, I downloaded the (en-US API level 15) APK for
> Fennec 46 and ran ImageOptim (https://imageoptim.com/mac) on the PNG
> files included directly in the APK (i.e. not the one hidden inside
> omni.ja). ImageOptim says: "Saved 311KB out of 1.7MB. 28.6% per file
> on average (up to 94.3%)." (There wasn't a single already-optimal PNG
> there!) Additionally, the same exercise could be repeated for images
> in omni.ja.


We do optimize images before they land in the tree, although we usually use
pngcrush, and there may be some older assets that landed before we made
this common practice. However, Sebastian ran an analysis recently and found
that there's actually not much left to optimize (~35kb):
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1266156

What you may actually be seeing is the fact that AAPT's optimization tool
may actually increase the size of optimized PNGs:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1266156


> Then all the XML and JS could be Zopflified. The bundled
> .ttf files could be turned into Brotli-compressed WOFF2 files.


We recently landed a change to make fonts downloadable by default, so these
aren't even included in our APK anymore:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1194338

We also have a GSoC student this summer who's going to work on making more
parts of the APK downloadable at runtime.

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:28 AM, Henri Sivonen  wrote:

> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Jim Blandy  wrote:
> > What are the distributions of memory and flash sizes for the devices
> people
> > currently run Fennec on? It'll be almost impossible to have a good
> > discussion about Fennec size without those numbers. I seem to remember
> that
> > is data we felt was okay to collect.
>
> We should also be data-driven about understanding where the bytes go.
> In particular, I think functionality-neutral size reductions should be
> done before blocking new functionality from landing. In addition to
> unoptimally compressed PNGs, there's unminified JS in Fennec (i.e. the
> JS comments are shipped).
>

We landed a change a while back to minify JS, and we verified this morning
that all JS seems to be minified in components/chrome/toolkit:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1039902

I think the Firefox for Android APK size issue merits its own discussion,
outside the context of this ICU thread. I'd encourage anyone who's
interested in helping out to take a look at the meta bug where we've been
tracking our effort to reduce APK size:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=942609

There are a lot of ideas in there, but we haven't had time to explore
fixing them all.

Margaret
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Transitioning from FHR to Telemetry

[Margaret Leibovic]

For Android, we are planning to start sending key metrics in a mobile "core
data" ping. We're designing the specifics of that ping here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ap5Z48Rh4t1r5lKmDAVCHNWpLS4nJIG4abZmw0nQiq4/edit#heading=h.my2y0xqb6c91

We haven't started implementation work on this yet, so we're probably
looking at landing code in Firefox 46, but hopefully we can uplift this.
Here is the meta bug that we're using to more generally track this
transition to unified telemetry:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1220177

We've also discussed taking advantage of some more features of Adjust [1]
to hold us over in the meantime, but we haven't committed to any decisions
about that.

Margaret

[1]
https://gecko.readthedocs.org/en/latest/mobile/android/base/fennec/adjust.html

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Hamilton Ulmer  wrote:

> Hello  -
>
> Those responsible for Android-related FHR-based metrics are not aware of
> the timeline for Android's transition, and I doubt we're prepared for that
> transition at this point. It'd be great to know the timeline for this. The
> bug linked to above does not include that information.
>
> ~ Hamilton
>
> ___
> mobile-firefox-dev mailing list
> mobile-firefox-...@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mobile-firefox-dev
>
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: [feature] open certain domains into a private window

[Margaret Leibovic]

For Android, we have been discussing building a feature like this around
tab queues (the new open later feature we've been working on), but I
don't know of any desktop plans for something like this.

I agree the UX/product work around this idea could be tricky, so I'm not
sure dev-platform is the right place for this discussion. I would encourage
you to talk to Javaun about new ideas for private browsing, since he's the
product manager leading our private browsing 2.0 initiative.

Margaret



On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com
wrote:

 On 2015-06-23 8:57 PM, Andreas Tolfsen wrote:

 On 23 Jun 2015, at 20:24, Karl Dubost kdub...@mozilla.com wrote:

 Le 23 juin 2015 à 19:16, Eric Shepherd esheph...@mozilla.com a écrit :

 I thought we had an open in new private window option when right
 clicking links. Not a total solution but helps.


 My I'm reading an email with a link to Google Doc was assuming an
 email client (not webmail), could be IRC, or anything else outside of the
 browser.


 Is it an option to register two browser handlers in the operating system
 for Firefox?  One for regular Firefox, and one for Firefox in private mode?


 We already have that, but that won't help for Karl's use case.

 The technical work involved in fixing what Karl is asking for is simple.
 The UX we want to expose the feature through is the more interesting
 question IMO.


___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Fennec build unusable with own build

[Margaret Leibovic]

Hi Martijn,

On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Martijn martijn.mart...@gmail.com wrote:

 I tried building Fennec for a patch that I made, but the build that came
 out of it seemed to be useless on the Galaxy Nexus phone. Fennec would
 start up all right, but I could not load anything in the browser.
 I built on MacOS X lion.


I'm running OS X 10.8.2, and I've been building successfully for the Galaxy
Nexus (and all other devices I've tested). My mozconfig looks basically
like what you have, expect for the ndk version.


 My .mozconfig file:
 # Add the correct paths here:
  ac_add_options --with-android-ndk=$HOME/android-ndk-r8e


I have ndk-r8c in my mozconfig (and that's what's listed on the wiki), so I
think this may be your problem.

 ac_add_options

 --with-android-toolchain=$HOME/android-ndk-r8e/toolchains/arm-linux-androideabi-4.7/prebuilt/darwin-x86_64


(And I don't think you need this line anymore)

Best,
Margaret
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: jsm source (mercurial )

[Margaret Leibovic]

Which jsm files are you looking for? You can browse the mozilla-central
repo (and download individual files) on the web here:
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/

Margaret

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:59 AM, rvj r...@rolemodels.net wrote:

 do I need to install windows mercurial to download the jsm files ..

 or is there an alternative (simpler) method?
 __**_
 dev-platform mailing list
 dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
 https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/dev-platformhttps://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform