We have test coverage using emulators, and actual hardware (panda boards) is
being set up. Reporting of the results and integration is very lacking, and
until those pieces fall into place (e.g. try integration), the developer
experience is going to suck a lot if we enforce the rule below (backo
On 8/1/12 5:47 PM, Alex Keybl wrote:
any desktop/mobile change that negatively impacts B2G builds in a significant
way will be backed out (and vice versa).
Do we have any sort of B2G test coverage? Ideally on try?
-Boris
___
dev-platform mailing li
> Can you clarify this? It sounds like changes would land on aurora *first*,
> and then be forward-ported to mozilla-central. Which, IMO, goes against the
> basic principles of how our branches work.
Sure thing. All platform agnostic Gecko changes will continue to only be
uplifted once we gain
On 2/08/2012 9:47 a.m., Alex Keybl wrote:
Active Gecko platform changes in support of B2G v1 will move to
mozilla-aurora, with changes of course being merged back to m-c as
well
Can you clarify this? It sounds like changes would land on aurora
*first*, and then be forward-ported to mozilla-ce
W3C is proposing a revised charter for the Audio Working Group. For
more details, see:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2012Jul/0011.html
http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/charter/2012/charter-proposed.html
Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through
the end o
Release drivers for the B2G project recently got together to discuss committing
to a specific Gecko version for B2G v1**, and we've all agreed on Gecko 17
making the most sense from the point of view of technical requirements,
resourcing, testing, and timelines. Platform changes for B2G have bee
sali...@gmail.com wrote:
My use case is, I have RPC listener in addon, which is called from some other application. On receiving of RPC event, I need to load a specific URL to the browser. For this I need nsIWebNavigation object in RPC handler.
If there is a way to load the URL to the browser
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Justin Dolske wrote:
> I'd want to think carefully about doing so, in the name of web
> compatibility... Ending up with a plethora of image formats with varying
> degrees of support isn't a state we'd want to end up in. Video is a prime
> example of this: codec pa
8 matches
Mail list logo