Re: Have you run 'mach bootstrap' lately?

On 05/12/2017 06:59 PM, Dustin Mitchell wrote: Yep, this caused problems in automation (we ended up setting I_PREFER_A_SUBOPTIMAL_MERCURIAL_EXPERIENCE_THANK_YOu or whatever the env var was). I agree that a quick warn-and-continue would be fine. Especially for git users. ;-) Speaking of

W3C Charter Advance Notice: Web Platform (recharter) & Service Workers WGs

The W3C gave advance notice that 2 new charters are under development: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017May/0006.html (which contains brief descriptions of what has changed) Web Platform Working Group http://w3c.github.io/charter-html/webplat-wg.html

Re: Have you run 'mach bootstrap' lately?

Yep, this caused problems in automation (we ended up setting I_PREFER_A_SUBOPTIMAL_MERCURIAL_EXPERIENCE_THANK_YOu or whatever the env var was). I agree that a quick warn-and-continue would be fine. Dustin 2017-05-12 15:23 GMT-04:00 Eric Rahm : > Didn't it somehow cause builds

Re: Have you run 'mach bootstrap' lately?

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Aaron Klotz wrote: > On 5/12/2017 8:29 AM, Ryan VanderMeulen wrote: > >> And while we're on that topic, I'll also remind people once again that >> for Windows MozillaBuild users, you can keep your copy of Mercurial up to >> date via pip!

Re: Have you run 'mach bootstrap' lately?

On 5/12/2017 8:29 AM, Ryan VanderMeulen wrote: And while we're on that topic, I'll also remind people once again that for Windows MozillaBuild users, you can keep your copy of Mercurial up to date via pip! Simply run |pip install -U mercurial| and you'll have the latest version available - no

Re: Intent to Ship throttling of tracking timeouts

Thank you for the details. I’ve added dev-doc-needed on the bug and added a link to this thread so the writer can find the information here quickly. Eric Shepherd Senior Technical Writer Mozilla Developer Network Blog: https://www.bitstampede.com/ Twitter:

Re: Fwd: Changes to code review tools and processes

>This was posted on mozilla.tools yesterday but doesn't seem to have made it >to dev.platform. It is likely to be of interest to many people on this >list. Note the comment "If you have questions or concerns beyond those >addressed below, please >use the mozilla.tools group and/or #phabricator on

Re: Have you run 'mach bootstrap' lately?

Didn't it somehow cause builds to fail? A gentle reminder is probably fine. TBH I'd be fine if it auto-updated but maybe I'm in the minority. On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > > Would it be

Re: Have you run 'mach bootstrap' lately?

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Andrew McCreight wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote: > >> On Fri, May 12, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: >> > Would it be possible to add a check like: >> > "You haven't updated

Re: Have you run 'mach bootstrap' lately?

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > > Would it be possible to add a check like: > > "You haven't updated your local configuration since XX days, please > > consider running > > mach bootstrap

Re: Have you run 'mach bootstrap' lately?

On Fri, May 12, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > Would it be possible to add a check like: > "You haven't updated your local configuration since XX days, please > consider running > mach bootstrap ?" We've had mach produce nag messages like that in the past and they have been

Fwd: Changes to code review tools and processes

This was posted on mozilla.tools yesterday but doesn't seem to have made it to dev.platform. It is likely to be of interest to many people on this list. Note the comment "If you have questions or concerns beyond those addressed below, please use the mozilla.tools group and/or #phabricator on IRC

Re: Have you run 'mach bootstrap' lately?

I'm not sure. I always just answer the prompts and am happy with that. There is a --settings option, which sounds like it might be helpful, but I don't have any experience with that. - Geoff On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Ethan Glasser-Camp < eglasserc...@mozilla.com> wrote: > Is there a

Re: Quantum Flow Engineering Newsletter #9

On 05/12/2017 12:29 PM, Tom Ritter wrote: On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: I realized we haven't had a performance mini-story for a while -- I sort of dropped the ball on that. Running over this bug made me want to talk about a pretty well known

Re: Quantum Flow Engineering Newsletter #9

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > I realized we haven't had a performance mini-story for a while -- I sort of > dropped the ball on that. Running over this bug made me want to talk about > a pretty well known sort of slowness in C++ code, virtual

Re: Have you run 'mach bootstrap' lately?

Good idea - I filed bug 1364480. On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > > > Le 12/05/2017 à 05:08, Geoffrey Brown a écrit : > > If you set up your build environment with 'mach bootstrap' but haven't > run > > it recently, consider taking a few minutes now

Re: Have you run 'mach bootstrap' lately?

Is there a way to run it without having to reanswer the configuration questions? Ethan On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:08 PM, Geoffrey Brown wrote: > If you set up your build environment with 'mach bootstrap' but haven't run > it recently, consider taking a few minutes now to

Re: Have you run 'mach bootstrap' lately?

Le 12/05/2017 à 05:08, Geoffrey Brown a écrit : > If you set up your build environment with 'mach bootstrap' but haven't run > it recently, consider taking a few minutes now to run it again. Running > 'mach bootstrap' from time to time will keep your environment up to date > and (more-or-less)

Re: Have you run 'mach bootstrap' lately?

On 5/11/17 11:08 PM, Geoffrey Brown wrote: If you set up your build environment with 'mach bootstrap' but haven't run it recently, consider taking a few minutes now to run it again. Running 'mach bootstrap' from time to time will keep your environment up to date and (more-or-less) in sync with

Re: new configure option: --enable-debug-rust

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote: >> With these options, you get a browser that runs quickly (i.e. no DEBUG >> assertions in C++ code), but still lets you debug the Rust code

Re: Is Big5 form submission fast enough?

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 09:28:50AM +0800, Kan-Ru Chen wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2017, at 01:43 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > In Firefox 43, I rewrote our Big5 support and, among other things, I > > optimized the *encoder* for footprint rather than speed on the theory > > that users won't notice

IDNA processing

If this is better suited elsewhere, such as dev-tech-network, please let me know. For about five years I've been trying to figure out the IDNA algorithm that a) browsers follow and b) browsers want to follow, but I've not had much luck thus far getting folks to reply. E.g.,

Re: Intent to Ship throttling of tracking timeouts

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Bill McCloskey wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > > On 5/11/17 10:30 PM, Eric Shepherd (Sheppy) wrote: > > > >> So part of private browsing and not a developer-facing feature, then? > >>

Quantum Flow Engineering Newsletter #9

Hi everyone, It's been 10 weeks since I have started writing these newsletters (the number in the title isn't an off by one error, there was a one week hiatus due to a work week!). We still have quite a bit of work ahead of us, but we have also accomplished a good amount. Finding a good metric