On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 2:23 PM, smaug via governance <
governa...@lists.mozilla.org> wrote:
>
> I'd be ok to do a quick r+ if interdiff was working well.
Depending on the relative timezones of the reviewer and reviewee, that
could delay landing by 24 hours or even a whole weekend.
In general
On Friday 2017-03-10 19:33 -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> We have been using Phabricator for our reviews in NSS and its interdiffs
> work pretty well
> (modulo rebases, which are not so great), and it's very easy to handle LGTM
> with
> nits and verify the nits.
For what it's worth, I think proper
> As an example of why "backup the db" is harder than it sounds, you would
> need to backup the entire storage subsystem.
Mossop suggested I chime in on this thread, but I think Ben has covered much of
what I'd say!
Some set of schema changes is safe or possible to downgrade: rearranging
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:23 PM, smaug via governance <
governa...@lists.mozilla.org> wrote:
> On 03/10/2017 12:59 AM, Bobby Holley wrote:
>
>> At a high level, I think the goals here are good.
>>
>> However, the tooling here needs to be top-notch for this to work, and the
>> standard approach of
Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Even with a single reviewer, I often times end up making some trivial
changes to my patches to fix stupid mistakes and issues that I know the
reviewer doesn't care enough to want to look at before landing. In
general our code review process has a lot of flexibility built
Hi all,
We seem to be taking advantage of our multi-process capabilities more and more
these days. In order to fully understand the memory impact of these changes,
any new process type needs to be fully supported by AWSY (Are We Slim Yet)
prior to landing. If you have any questions, please have
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 01:55:40PM +, David Burns wrote:
I went back and did some checks with autoland to servo and the results are
negligible. So from 01 February 2017 to 10 March 2017 (as of sending this
email). I have removed merge commits from the numbers.
Autoland:
Total Servo Sync
I seem to recall gps saying, a few years ago, that the cost per push or
Try run was about $36. It would be good to know the current cost so
developers can feel more comfortable spending Mozilla money on
"unnecessary" Try runs before landing.
On 3/10/2017 6:47 AM, Andrew Halberstadt wrote:
I
Thank you to everyone who has shared ideas so far. I've compiled a
project plan for this feature here:
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1hX5IVeFRdLyBCcMu9F_6rQi4wdmLv46UWmJ5muRpwcw/pub
tl;dr: The proposed path forward is to build a WebExtensions API that
can be used by both system addons
Me too. Have a phone which does what I need (calling people and be called:) )
No need for a mobile device which has its own security and usability problems.
FRG
Masatoshi Kimura wrote:
On 2017/03/10 6:53, Mike Connor wrote:
- Two-factor auth must be a requirement for all users approving
Due to some font-related topcrashes, nightly build updates are currently
frozen on yesterday's build. Backouts that'll hopefully fix it are on
mozilla-central and respins are in progress. Once they're finished, RelEng
will un-freeze.
Thanks,
Ryan
___
On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 7:38:57 AM UTC-5, Masatoshi Kimura wrote:
> On 2017/03/10 6:53, Mike Connor wrote:
> >- Two-factor auth must be a requirement for all users approving or
> >pushing a change.
>
> I have no mobile devices. How can I use 2FA?
>
> Previously I was suggested to
I don't have any data to back this up, but my suspicion is that a large
percentage
of backouts had try runs, but said try runs didn't run the jobs that failed
and caused
the backout. Imo, these kinds of backouts are (more) acceptable because it
means
the developer was trying to avoid doing a full
I went back and did some checks with autoland to servo and the results are
negligible. So from 01 February 2017 to 10 March 2017 (as of sending this
email). I have removed merge commits from the numbers.
Autoland:
Total Servo Sync Pushes: 152
Total Pushes: 1823
Total Backouts: 144
Percentage of
On 2017/03/10 14:00, Mike Hommey wrote:
> While we're talking about drag on productivity, there's already one that
> comes from autoland already, which is that you can't easily land fixups
> for stupid mistakes (like, a build failure on one platform, or other
> lame things that happen when things
On 2017/03/10 6:53, Mike Connor wrote:
>- Two-factor auth must be a requirement for all users approving or
>pushing a change.
I have no mobile devices. How can I use 2FA?
Previously I was suggested to buy a new PC and SSD only to shorten the
build time. Now do I have to buy a smartphone
Do we have a tracking bug for all the stuff that we can and should
remove once we no longer support XPCOM extensions?
--
Henri Sivonen
hsivo...@hsivonen.fi
https://hsivonen.fi/
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
Thanks for bringing this up here, Ehsan.
I have to concur. For more then just trivial patches I usually ask for
a description of the patch in bugzilla - the commit message is usually
not enough. Anything that can help the review by understanding the
intention and structure of the patch
On 09/03/2017 22:35, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I'm in favor of good commit messages, but I would note that current m-c
> convention really pushes against this, because people seem to feel that
> commit messages should be one line. Not sure what to do about that,
> but thought I would mention it.
19 matches
Mail list logo
