Re: Intent to ship: Web Speech API - Speech Recognition with Pocketsphinx

2014-11-09 Thread Andre Natal
Hi Marco. SpeechRTC was my first tentative with the platform. At early 2013 neither I had enough knowledge about gecko internals as even b2g was at very early stage (in the very beggining, Steven Lee needed to send me patches to gum work properly), so the fastest path was capture and stream

Re: Intent to ship: Web Speech API - Speech Recognition with Pocketsphinx

2014-11-09 Thread Andre Natal
Sorry, I forgot the links: 2 - Speechrtc offline on Firefox OS (Peak): http://youtu.be/FXKXhrRDEb8 3 - Continuous speech recognition on android with poc…: http://youtu.be/3lTtCFaQF2A On Nov 9, 2014 11:12 AM, Andre Natal ana...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Marco. SpeechRTC was my first tentative with

Re: e10s is now enabled by default for Nightly!

2014-11-09 Thread jmathies
Three? I've only seen two... Really three or more depending on the number of plugins you have running, usually just flash. Plugin processes are now owned by the chrome process so, chrome, a single process for content for now, and a set of plugin processes.

Re: e10s is now enabled by default for Nightly!

2014-11-09 Thread achwaqkhalid
Another annoying session-restore bug that just appeared in the last 4-5 days https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1095726 ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to ship: the 'box-decoration-break' CSS property

2014-11-09 Thread sime . vidas
On Friday, July 11, 2014 7:38:39 PM UTC+2, Mats Palmgren wrote: IE10 has -ms-box-decoration-break I've tested[1] this property in IE11 with the values slice and clone. IE does not seem to support it. (I've also checked in older versions via Document Mode in F12 tools.) [1]:

Re: e10s is now enabled by default for Nightly!

2014-11-09 Thread Nicholas Nethercote
On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote: BTW, does AWSY deal with e10s? That's an excellent question... I suspect not. I wonder if it'll get confused or just report measurements (e.g. explicit, resident) for one of the processes. AWSY's a little behind and it's most

Re: e10s is now enabled by default for Nightly!

2014-11-09 Thread Nicholas Nethercote
On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Nicholas Nethercote n.netherc...@gmail.com wrote: BTW, does AWSY deal with e10s? That's an excellent question... I suspect not. I wonder if it'll get confused or just report measurements (e.g. explicit, resident) for one of the processes. I just looked at the

Re: e10s is now enabled by default for Nightly!

2014-11-09 Thread Mike Hommey
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 03:21:57PM -0800, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Nicholas Nethercote n.netherc...@gmail.com wrote: BTW, does AWSY deal with e10s? That's an excellent question... I suspect not. I wonder if it'll get confused or just report

Re: e10s is now enabled by default for Nightly!

2014-11-09 Thread Chris Pearce
E10s also breaks EME Gecko Media Plugins, and probably OpenH264 as well. Bug 1057908 should fix that... Chris Pearce. On 11/7/2014 1:27 PM, Chris Peterson wrote: The patch is on mozilla-inbound and ought to hit mozilla-central in time for tomorrow's Nightly build. \o/

Re: MozReview ready for general use

2014-11-09 Thread Blair McBride
It's quite common for me to be working on a bug that depends on another bug that hasn't landed yet. I'm struggling to figure out how to make this work with MozReview, since everything is lumped into one review group and associated with one bug. ie, I have: * Bug 1 - patch A (this is either

Re: MozReview ready for general use

2014-11-09 Thread Gregory Szorc
We currently only attempt to map each review/commit series to a single bug. We will support multiple bugs eventually. Single bugs were easy to implement :) There is also an open bug to support specifying the base revision to review. Right now everything on the stack gets reviewed. That should

Re: MozReview ready for general use

2014-11-09 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 11/9/14, 11:10 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: We currently only attempt to map each review/commit series to a single bug. This is definitely a problem; it serializes workflow such that you have to get review on bug 1 and land it before you can even request review on bug 2 that depends on bug 1,