On 5/23/13 8:45 AM, Tim Taubert wrote:
I talked to Gavin yesterday and we think the best approach would be to
back out the Session Restore changes for now as they don't provide a
real benefit other than code cleanup (and don't block any other work).
The plan would then be to re-land them
Well, if we do not want the main thread to collapse under its weight, we
have to move code off the main thread and to encourage add-ons to do
likewise.
I'm not sure I see an alternative here.
Cheers,
David
On 5/24/13 1:12 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
My main concern is that Workers created by
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Benoit Jacob jacob.benoi...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/5/5 Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org One other thing: EPUB
publishers are screaming for good math support for
textbooks (and currently that means they want MathML). They're mostly
Webkit-based, and maybe
On 5/23/2013 5:32 AM, Scott Johnson wrote:
Members of dev-platform:
As part of the Web Rendering work-week in Taiwan, we had a discussion of
the process of code review, graciously led by roc. If you were unable to
attend, or were able to attend and would like to review the proceedings,
notes
There will be no rendering meeting this coming Monday (May 27), as many
people will be recovering from jet lag from the Taipei work week.
The next rendering meeting will be announced by Milan, probably for the
week after.
Benoit
___
dev-platform
Sounds like we're talking about code review.
But I want to qualify integration into bugzilla: I explicitly do not
want a tool that is tightly coupled to bugzilla. In fact, I want a
tool that has as little to do with bugzilla as feasible.
I'm a contributor to the Review Board project[1],
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Justin Lebar justin.le...@gmail.comwrote:
If we do, we risk ending up with yet another crappy
non-solution to a real problem (see bugzilla interdiff, splinter
integration, and so on).
I think that's quite unfair to the people who integrated Splinter. It's
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 08:40:29AM -0700, Michael Hoye wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Smedberg benja...@smedbergs.us To: Scott
Johnson sjohn...@mozilla.com Cc: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org,
Michael Hoye mh...@mozilla.com
* Automated tools: mhoye has identified
On 2013-05-24 11:46 AM, Benoit Girard wrote:
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Benjamin Smedberg
benja...@smedbergs.uswrote:
* Automated tools: mhoye has identified lack of automated review as one of
our biggest blockers to getting more mentors involved and having successful
mentoring for new
שלום. בהמשך לחשיפת מחקרנו בערוץ 10 –
94 אחוז מהעסקים בישראל לא מרוויחים מספיק
במהלך 13 השנים האחרונות, לאחר שבחנו מעל 12 אלף עסקים מכל הסוגים בישראל
ובארצות-הברית, גילינו שעסקים רבים בישראל יכולים היו לעמוד על רווחים כספיים
גבוהים בהרבה, אם לא מספר טעויות שנעשות על ידם.
בחג האחרון
One thing I forgot to mention explicitly but that is worth following
up on: we should generally be striving to get rid of code that is
enabled/disabled based on the value of MOZ_UPDATE_CHANNEL. If you are
responsible for any such code, please file bugs to switch them to
using these build defines,
I've described the various defines here:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/**Platform/Channel-specific_**build_defineshttps://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/Channel-specific_build_defines
My understanding of this is that we were going to limit use of all
of
these options to control
On 05/24/2013 11:05 AM, Mike Conley wrote:
Sounds like we're talking about code review.
But I want to qualify integration into bugzilla: I explicitly do not
want a tool that is tightly coupled to bugzilla. In fact, I want a
tool that has as little to do with bugzilla as feasible.
I'm a
13 matches
Mail list logo
