On 11/07/13 14:24, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 7/11/13 7:59 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
Hey, if we had a PTO app that tracked all absences, we could integrate
with it...
sigh
Just in case you were talking about the moco PTO app, it doesn't track
absences for non-MoCo employees, and even for
On 12/07/13 21:12, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
Would such an update increment the version number? I suspect you'd
want to be able to easily determine if an update has been applied, and
having to distinguish e.g. Firefox 30 without update 1 vs. Firefox
30 with update 1 could be annoying (and
On 13/07/13 00:36, Clint Talbert wrote:
This is all good stuff, and I want to support us being nimble. We also
need to balance that against security and quality in our builds. We go
through the release process for a reason, and we exert the energy to QA
these builds and ensure we can update
On 07/12/13 05:37 PM, Robert Strong wrote:
On 7/12/2013 1:12 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Gervase Markham g...@mozilla.org
wrote:
We keep hitting cases where we would like Firefoxes in the field to have
some data updated using a process which is much lighter
On 7/15/2013 9:30 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
On 13/07/13 00:36, Clint Talbert wrote:
This is all good stuff, and I want to support us being nimble. We also
need to balance that against security and quality in our builds. We go
through the release process for a reason, and we exert the energy to
On 7/10/2013 3:09 PM, smaug wrote:
Splitting patches is usually useful, but having a patch containing all
the changes can be also good.
If you have a set of 20-30 patches, but not a patch which contains all
the changes, it is often hard to see the big picture.
Again, perhaps some tool could
The Rendering meeting is about all things Gfx, Image, Layout, and Media.
It takes place every second Monday, alternating between 2:30pm PDT and 5:30pm
PDT.
The next meeting will take place today, Monday, July 15 at 5:30 PM US/Pacific
Please add to the agenda:
On 7/13/2013 3:15 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
We've dropped support for versions of MSVC prior to 2010, and we're
requiring at least GCC 4.4. According to [0] that means we should be
able to use /auto/. Anybody know any reasons why we can't start using it?
We don't yet require C++11 mode when
Meeting Details:
* Agenda: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/webapi-meetingnotes
* WebAPI Vidyo room
* A room we can find, San Francisco office
* Spadina conf. room, Toronto office
* Allo Allo conf. room, London office
* Vidyo Phone # +1-650-903-0800 x92 Conference #98413 (US/INTL)
* US Vidyo Phone
How can i add a new root cert to xulrunner from the command line in linux?
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
On 7/14/13 10:50 PM, Justin Lebar wrote:
We can't require any c++11 feature until we drop support for gcc 4.4.
[...] there are problems in the gcc 4.4 system headers that make using c++11
mode impossible (except on b2g/android).
Is there any reason to support gcc 4.4 outside of B2G/Android?
On 7/15/13 7:10 AM, Honza Bambas wrote:
- providing patch split to logically separated parts with numbers like
part 1 of 6
- and also a complete (folded) patch for reference
- strictly versioning the patch among review rounds
- when submitting a new version of a patch after r- always explain
On Mon 15 Jul 2013 11:43:05 AM PDT, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 7/15/13 2:36 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
If reviewee submits a new version of (say) patch 1 of 6, should they:
* attach patch 1 version 2
* an interdiff between patch 1 version 1 and 2
Yes, to both.
Bleagh. All of this points to an
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Another big one I'm aware of is the issue of how to treat '\\' in URLs.
In the specification this is resolved in favor of how
WebKit/Chromium/Trident go about it. Which is to treat it identically
to / but flag it with a
On 7/15/13 2:58 PM, Steve Fink wrote:
Even for the case of dependent patches (ones with separate parts that
cannot be landed together, but are usefully split up for review)?
Assuming s/cannot/must/, that's why I said generally, not always. ;)
Perhaps that's wrong of me, but it seems like
On 7/15/2013 2:58 PM, Steve Fink wrote:
On Mon 15 Jul 2013 11:43:05 AM PDT, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 7/15/13 2:36 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
If reviewee submits a new version of (say) patch 1 of 6, should they:
* attach patch 1 version 2
* an interdiff between patch 1 version 1 and 2
Yes, to
On 2013-07-15 3:14 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Another big one I'm aware of is the issue of how to treat '\\' in URLs.
In the specification this is resolved in favor of how
WebKit/Chromium/Trident go about it. Which is to
Hi!
Leak tests on OSX have been failing intermittently for nearly a year
now[1]. As yet, we don't have any ideas why they're failing, and nobody
is working on fixing them.
Would anybody be very sad if we shut them off? Are these tests providing
useful information any more?
If they are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13-07-15 1:45 PM, Chris AtLee wrote:
Would anybody be very sad if we shut them off?
I would be happy if you did, for the reasons you state. Please shut
them off.
-r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Darwin)
Comment: Using
Has a developer investigated? Steven, do you know anything about this?
doug
Chris AtLee wrote:
Hi!
Leak tests on OSX have been failing intermittently for nearly a year
now[1]. As yet, we don't have any ideas why they're failing, and nobody
is working on fixing them.
Would anybody be very
I'd say go ahead and shut them off.
I'm not going to have time to investigate this for the foreseeable
future. I'm already dealing with one very difficult (and possibly
intractable) tests bug
(https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=884471), and that's more
than enough at one time :-(
On
I think we can only make this decision once we know the worst case scenario
these tests are currently preventing, so that we can mitigate or plan for it.
-Alex
On Jul 15, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Chris AtLee cat...@mozilla.com wrote:
Hi!
Leak tests on OSX have been failing intermittently for
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Alex Keybl ake...@mozilla.com wrote:
I think we can only make this decision once we know the worst case
scenario these tests are currently preventing, so that we can mitigate or
plan for it.
-Alex
On Jul 15, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Chris AtLee cat...@mozilla.com
I brought this up ~2 years ago
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/0lkjbtBK8eQ,
and we concluded that discussion saying that we should turn these tests
off, so bug 617441 was filed and then nothing happened.
I don't think anything has changed since we had that
Makes me sad that the knee jerk reaction is to turn leak testing off
before anyone actually does any engineering. Steven, anyone else that
can take a look at this mac bug?
Steven Michaud mailto:smich...@pobox.com
July 15, 2013 2:15 PM
I'd say go ahead and shut them off.
I'm not going to have
25 matches
Mail list logo
