Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

Mark Côté wrote: > It was announced in May > (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.tools/4qroY2Iia9I), > linked to in this forum: > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/qh5scX3Gk2U/xCWe8jrOAQAJ I stand corrected, thanks. I would've thought that'd be put in

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

Hi Joe, I just want to publicly apologize for being sarcastic in my original post to you. I could've found a better voice and the frustration clouded my judgement. I'm sorry. Edmund ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org

Re: More Rust code

BTW, speaking of training: Jason's and my book, "Programming Rust" will be available on paper from O'Reilly on August 29th! Steve Klabnik's book with No Starch Press is coming out soon as well, but I don't know the details there. On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Ted Mielczarek

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On 2017-07-17 8:46 PM, Edmund Wong wrote: Mike Hoye wrote: Given that we've been talking about this stuff for years now, I think it's very clear that we haven't come to this point by "somebody at the top issuing an edict that they want something modern"; the decision to commit to Phabricator

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > If the bug is only serving as an anchor to track code review, then the > question we should be asking is "do we even need a bug." > In my experience the answer to this is "yes, we need a bug". I very rarely have a

Status of Closing Intermittents

Two Sundays ago I went through and closed the first batch of intermittent bugs with no new OrangeFactor (or other) comments. That was 5,000 bugs and cause an bugmail storm. I'm holding off on closing the next batch, because we need to run a script to do this.

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

Mike Hoye wrote: > > Given that we've been talking about this stuff for years now, I think > it's very clear that we haven't come to this point by "somebody at the > top issuing an edict that they want something modern"; the decision to > commit to Phabricator was ultimately announced on May

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Commerce Interest Group

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 4:11 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > The W3C is proposing a new charter for: > > Web Commerce Interest Group > https://www.w3.org/2017/03/commerce-charter.html > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Jul/0008.html Context: while

Re: Care in the use of MOZ_CRASH_UNSAFE_* macros: data review needed

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Kris Maglione wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 09:52:55AM -0700, Bobby Holley wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Benjamin Smedberg > > >> wrote: >> >> I don't know really anything about how rust panics get

Proposed W3C Charter: Web Commerce Interest Group

The W3C is proposing a new charter for: Web Commerce Interest Group https://www.w3.org/2017/03/commerce-charter.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Jul/0008.html Mozilla has the opportunity to send support, comments, or objections through Monday, August 28. If

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

I filed a central tracker bug for production Phabricator deployment: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1381498. I have filed blockers and dependencies for a variety of related tasks as discussed in these threads. Mark On 2017-07-14 11:33 AM, Milan Sreckovic wrote: Replying in

Re: More Rust code

Nick, Thanks for kicking off this discussion! I felt like a broken record talking to people about this in SF. From my perspective Rust is our single-biggest competitive advantage for shipping Firefox, and every time we choose C++ over Rust we throw that away. We know the costs of shipping

Re: More Rust code

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017, at 07:41 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 04:06:39PM -0700, Eric Rahm wrote: > > Interesting points. > > > >- *using breakpad* - was the problem that creating wrappers to access > >the c/c++ code was too tedious? Could bindgen help with that, if not

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On 7/16/17 11:10 PM, Edmund Wong wrote: Joe Hildebrand wrote: I'm responding at the top of the thread here so that I'm not singling out any particular response. We didn't make clear in this process how much work Mark and his team did ahead of the decision to gather feedback from senior

Re: Care in the use of MOZ_CRASH_UNSAFE_* macros: data review needed

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 09:52:55AM -0700, Bobby Holley wrote: On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: I don't know really anything about how rust panics get reflected into crash-data. Who would be the right person to talk to about that? Rust panics

Re: Care in the use of MOZ_CRASH_UNSAFE_* macros: data review needed

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: > I don't know really anything about how rust panics get reflected into > crash-data. Who would be the right person to talk to about that? > Rust panics are equivalent to MOZ_CRASHES, and we treat them as such (or

Re: Care in the use of MOZ_CRASH_UNSAFE_* macros: data review needed

As of bug 1275780, rust panic text gets reported as a MOZ_CRASH reason. On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: > I don't know really anything about how rust panics get reflected into > crash-data. Who would be the right person to talk to about that? >

Re: Care in the use of MOZ_CRASH_UNSAFE_* macros: data review needed

I don't know really anything about how rust panics get reflected into crash-data. Who would be the right person to talk to about that? --BDS On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > On 07/17/2017 05:18 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:> Unlike MOZ_CRASH, >

Re: Care in the use of MOZ_CRASH_UNSAFE_* macros: data review needed

On 07/17/2017 05:18 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:> Unlike MOZ_CRASH, which only annotates crashes with compile-time constants > which are inherently not risky, both MOZ_CRASH_UNSAFE_OOL and > MOZ_CRASH_UNSAFE_PRINTF can annotate crashes with arbitrary data. Crash > reasons are publicly visible in

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

> On Jul 15, 2017, at 23:36, Gabriele Svelto wrote: > >> On 14/07/2017 05:39, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> I should note that with GitHub what this means is that you get >> discussion on the PR that should have gone in the issue, with the result >> that people following the

Care in the use of MOZ_CRASH_UNSAFE_* macros: data review needed

Please take care when using the MOZ_CRASH_UNSAFE_* macros. Because of the risk involved and because this constitutes data collection, I would like Firefox data stewards to review any new usages of the MOZ_CRASH_UNSAFE_* macros. Unlike MOZ_CRASH, which only annotates crashes with compile-time

Re: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 11:39:38 PM UTC-4, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 7/13/17 9:04 PM, Mark Côté wrote: > > It is also what newer systems > > do today (e.g. GitHub and the full Phabricator suite) > > I should note that with GitHub what this means is that you get > discussion on the PR that

[Firefox Desktop] Issues found: July 10th to July 14th

Hi everyone, Here's the list of new issues found and filed by the Desktop Release QA Team last week, *July 10 - July 14* (week 28). Additional details on the team's priorities last week, as well as the plans for the current week are available at: