Re: Is super-review still a thing?

It seems that, yes, a model in which a patch to a given component would need reviews by any one person in a specific pool of reviewers makes a lot of sense. Even more so if the patch submitter doesn't have to figure out who is in the pool. Having a mechanism that supports a secondary, high-level

Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

On Fri, May 11, 2018, at 10:35 AM, Anthony Jones wrote: > I have some specific requests for you: > > Let me know if you have specific Firefox related cases where Rust is > slowing you down (thanks Jeff [7]) > Cross language inlining is coming - avoid duplication between Rust > and C++

Update on rustc/clang goodness

You may already know that the Low-Level Tools team support important tools and code infrastructure. Lately we’ve also been improving our rustc/clang (LLVM) story and I’d like bring everyone up to date. There are a lot of important and interesting things going on: * Michael Woerister and

Re: Intent to Unship: Application Cache over Insecure Contexts

As the removal has rode the trains through Beta without issue I'm going to remove AppCache over insecure contexts for stable as originally stated for 62. The work is happening here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1460478 Mike west did a wonderful job of adding web-platform-tests

Re: Intent to unprefix: ::-moz-selection.

In the CSSWG April F2F in Berlin this was extensively discussed and the CSSWG allowed / recommended us to unprefix this despite changing the spec. Just landed the change unprefixing this on inbound, let me know if you see something broken because of it. Thanks! -- Emilio On 3/26/18 9:16

Re: Is super-review still a thing?

On May 10, 2018, at 06:47, Randell Jesup wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018, at 12:41 AM, Mark Côté wrote: >>> How we might use blocking reviewers in our workflow is still open, but >>> it could be used for training up reviewers, in which case the trainee >>> would be a

Re: Intent to unprefix: ::-moz-selection.

Sorry for not following up on this earlier, Ehsan, somehow this slipped through my inbox. On 4/6/18 1:26 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: ::-moz-selection seems like a fairly popular feature. PublicWWW claims it's seen on a million sites: https://publicwww.com/websites/%22%3A%3A-moz-selection%22/

Re: Is super-review still a thing?

>On Thu, Apr 26, 2018, at 12:41 AM, Mark Côté wrote: >> How we might use blocking reviewers in our workflow is still open, but >> it could be used for training up reviewers, in which case the trainee >> would be a regular reviewer and the module peer/owner would be a >> blocking reviewer. >

Re: Intent to unship: URL.createObjectURL(MediaStream)

I was behind on m.d.platform, I'm afraid. tl;dr: This is Long, but in the end I support removal of createObjectURL(MediaStream) in 62. For anyone who wants to see why, read below. It does make some important points to think about when considering removal, especially about how to gauge usage.

Intent to unship http-equiv cookies

Meta tags provide equivalent behaviour to sending HTTP headers via the “http-equiv” attribute. Set-Cookie can be used to provide cookies to the user via this attribute: However this behaviour isn’t restrictable via a Content Security Policy. This gives an attacker the ability to change a users

W3C Proposed Recommendation: Web Driver

A W3C Proposed Recommendation is available for the membership of W3C (including Mozilla) to vote on, before it proceeds to the final stage of being a W3C Recomendation: Web Driver https://www.w3.org/TR/webdriver/ https://w3c.github.io/webdriver/webdriver-spec.html Deadline for responses:

W3C Proposed Recommendation: Canonical EXI

A W3C Proposed Recommendation is available for the membership of W3C (including Mozilla) to vote on, before it proceeds to the final stage of being a W3C Recomendation: Canonical EXI https://www.w3.org/TR/exi-c14n/ Deadline for responses: Thursday, May 24, 2018 If there are comments you