Intent to unship: Linux 32bit Geckodriver executable

the WDSpec tests, a subset of Web-Platform Tests used for testing the WebDriver specification. Testharness.js and reftests in the Web-Platform tests will still be working as they use Marionette via another means. Let me know if you have any questions. David

Re: Intent to unship: mozmm CSS unit.

should remove it. Would you be able to try searching for those minutes? I know there's been an in-person discussion (and I think it was at a meeting at a TPAC a few yeas ago). -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://

Re: Intent to require Python 3 to build Firefox 59 and later

I am not saying it should but if we have a requirement for python 3, we are also going to have a requirement for py2 to both be available for local development. David On 11 November 2017 at 14:10, Andrew Halberstadt <ahalberst...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 9:44 PM Da

Re: Intent to require Python 3 to build Firefox 59 and later

of the mozbase stuff is already moving to python 3 support but that still means we need to have web servers and the actual test runners moved over too. David On 10 November 2017 at 23:27, Gregory Szorc <g...@mozilla.com> wrote: > For reasons outlined at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ > sho

Re: Pulsebot in #developers

I use #developers for two things: 1. I prefer to keep my discussions in smaller topic channels, but for my sanity I also try to keep my channel list small. There is a large set of people whom I ping roughly once a month and can't be bothered matching channels with. #developers is my "lowest

Re: Website memory leaks

As a user, I would definitely love to have this. I wanted to add something like that to about:performance, but at the time, my impression was that we did not have sufficient platform data on where allocations come from to provide something convincing. Cheers, David On 02/11/17 15:34, Randell

Re: verifying unpacked signed add-ons

On 11/03/2017 03:34 PM, Robert Helmer wrote: > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 3:25 PM, David Keeler <dkee...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> [firefox-dev, dev-addons, and the enterprise mailing list cc'd - please >> direct follow-up discussion to dev-platform] >> >> Hello All, >

verifying unpacked signed add-ons

we should disallow this?) Thanks, David signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Website memory leaks

grown in the past X amount of time" or past a certain threshold, that's the best indicator I've come up with. I don't know what we'd do at that point -- force killing the content process sounds severe (though possibly correct) -- or some alert similar to the dreaded slow script one. -- D

Re: Visual Studio 2017 coming soon

, and easily testable on Try. Thank you! On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 5:48 PM, David Major <dma...@mozilla.com> wrote: > I'm planning to move production Windows builds to VS2017 (15.4.1) in bug > 1408789. > > VS2017 has optimizer improvements that produce faster code. I've seen

Re: Visual Studio 2017 coming soon

), I'm comfortable with that number. If it goes longer than that, I agree it makes sense to wait for a new train. On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Sylvestre Ledru <sle...@mozilla.com> wrote: > Hello, > > > On 25/10/2017 23:48, David Major wrote: > > I'm planning to move p

Re: Visual Studio 2017 coming soon

Agreed, changing compilers of an already-released ESR isn't a good idea. You could use 2017 to build ESR52 locally though, if that's what you're asking. Our tree has supported 2017 builds for a good while, since it's the default VS download from Microsoft and a number of Mozillians have been

Visual Studio 2017 coming soon

I'm planning to move production Windows builds to VS2017 (15.4.1) in bug 1408789. VS2017 has optimizer improvements that produce faster code. I've seen 3-6% improvement on Speedometer. There is also increased support for C++14 and C++17 language features:

Re: We need better canaries for JS code

Btw, I believe that there is already support for reporting uncaught errors and that it is blocked by the lack of test harness support. Cheers, David On 18/10/17 19:37, Steve Fink wrote: > My gut feeling is that you'd only want uncaught errors, and > AutoJSAPI::ReportException is a better

Re: We need better canaries for JS code

This should be feasible. Opening bug 1409852 for the low-level support. On 18/10/17 22:22, Dan Mosedale wrote: > Could we do this on a per-module opt-in basis to allow for gradual > migration?  That is to say, assuming there's enough information in the > stack to tell where it was thrown from

Re: We need better canaries for JS code

On 18/10/17 14:16, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 10/18/17 4:28 AM, David Teller wrote: >> 2/ basically impossible to diagnose in the wild, because there was no >> error message of any kind. > > That's odd.  Was the exception caught or something?  If not, it should > have

Re: We need better canaries for JS code

Beta, Release, ... My main worry, at this stage, is what we encountered when we started flagging uncaught async errors: some module owners simply never fixed their errors, so we had to whitelist large swaths of Firefox code, knowing that it was misbehaving. Cheers, David __

Re: We need better canaries for JS code

On 18/10/17 10:45, Gregory Szorc wrote: > I agree that errors like this should have better visibility in order to > help catch bugs. > > I'm not sure changing behavior of the JS VM is the proper layer to > accomplish this. I think reporting messages from the JS console is a > better place to

We need better canaries for JS code

s a programmer error. - Any TypeError is a programmer error. I expect that this will find a number of lurking errorsy, so we may want to migrate code progressively, using a directive, say "use strict moz-platform" and static analysis to help encourage using this directive. What do you think

W3C Proposed Recommendation: Cooperative Scheduling of Background Tasks (requestIdleCallback)

to hear from somebody knowledgable about the spec and our implementation before just doing that. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know

Re: C++ function that the optimizer won't eliminate

> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 5:41 PM, David Major <dma...@mozilla.com> wrote: > > I bet Google Benchmark will have what you want. > > > > As a first guess, maybe this? > > https://github.com/google/benchmark/blob/master/include/ > benchmark/benchmark.h#L297

Re: C++ function that the optimizer won't eliminate

I bet Google Benchmark will have what you want. As a first guess, maybe this? https://github.com/google/benchmark/blob/master/include/benchmark/benchmark.h#L297 (And if godbolt says they are wrong, please send them a PR :)) On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Gabriele Svelto

Re: Status of deprecating non-secure HTTP

on-secure context, and @supports would do the right thing. So I don't think this requires any new *features* to be spec'd in CSS (since @supports would work, and is the right thing to use), although it probably does require a small amount of new spec prose to explain how it works. -David -- 턞

Re: removing "the old way" of signing add-ons

products don't trust any code-signing roots, so this wouldn't work as before even without removing the now-dead code. Cheers, David On 09/22/2017 01:35 AM, Onno Ekker wrote: > Op 27-7-2017 om 07:03 schreef Andrew Swan: >> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:49 AM, Frank-Rainer Grahl <f...@gm

Re: Creating a content process during shutdown...

Hi Gabor, I'm interested in shutdown issues. Is there a bug # for this case? Cheers, D On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 4:08 AM, Gabor Krizsanits wrote: > I guess the question is how do you define "after we've entered shutdown". > > For the preallocated process manager both

Proposed W3C Charter: Web Authentication Working Group

to this thread if you think there's something we should say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should support or oppose it. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 Before I

Re: Eiminating nsIDOM* interfaces and brand checks

because symbols are new, but maybe it's just something to get used to, hard to tell. David [1] https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/54 [2] https://github.com/heycam/webidl/pull/357 [3] https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/419 Le vendredi 1 septembre 2017 17:01:58 UTC+2, Boris Zbarsky

Re: Stylo now the default configuration for mozilla-central

:Servo (or deleting the function, of course). Otherwise we risk taking substantial regressions in the CSS code backing much of our user interface. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 Be

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

to get this started. David On 31 August 2017 at 21:51, Jim Blandy <jbla...@mozilla.com> wrote: > Sorry for the premature send. The complete message should read: > > The primary goals here are not related to automation and testing. > > - We want to migrate the Devtools consol

Re: Implementing a Chrome DevTools Protocol server in Firefox

Do we know if the other vendors would see value in having this spec'ed properly so that we have true interop here? Reverse engineering seems like a "fun" project but what stops people from breaking stuff without realising? David On 30 August 2017 at 22:55, Michael Smith <li...@spin

Re: Coding style: Argument alignment

ouching additional lines, which is both changes blame and is extra work (although it's not extra work if we're using clang-format tree-wide). Option (b) is also more likely to lead to overly long lines that require wrapping. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Commerce Interest Group

t seems pretty reasonable to me (although broad, but broad seems OK for an IG). So I'm inclined to vote in support of the charter, with the following comments: = There should likely be a mention of some form of interaction with the Web Payments Working Group. Section 6 (Patent Disclosures)

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: WebVR Working Group

. - -David On Friday 2017-08-18 10:17 -0500, Lars Bergstrom wrote: > Thanks, Tantek! I like this response. I have not been able to reach > google/microsoft but will inform them of this intention. > > To reinforce point #1, I'd add that WebVR is currently under TAG review

JavaScript Binary AST Engineering Newsletter #1

Hey, all cool kids have exciting Engineering Newsletters these days, so it's high time the JavaScript Binary AST got one! # General idea JavaScript Binary AST is a joint project between Mozilla and Facebook to rethink how JavaScript source code is stored/transmitted/parsed. We expect that this

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: WebVR Working Group

On Wednesday 2017-07-12 12:20 -0700, L. David Baron wrote: > On Wednesday 2017-07-12 06:48 -0500, Lars Bergstrom wrote: > > There is some contention in the WebVR community group around the submission > > of this charter proposal, as there is currently no public s

Re: Quantum Flow Engineering Newsletter #18

# is showing a few unassigned that are actually assigned (judging from the comments). Similarly, if something IS assigned to you, but it's not actively being worked on and you're OK with someone else doing so, please un-assign yourself. Thanks... -- David Durst [:ddurst] On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 9:26 AM

the root CA module now loads asynchronously

PSM: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Core=Security%3A%20PSM Thanks to everyone who made this possible! Cheers, David * the catch is that if any thread needs to query the trust of a certificate, that thread will block until this operation has completed. In the worst case, we should be no s

Re: disabled non-e10s tests on trunk

la-central/search?q=skip-if%28browserIsRemote although that search isn't exhaustive, and contains some tests that we still run under some conditions. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂

Re: Actually-Infallible Fallible Allocations

I don't think that anyone deliberately set out to write the code this way. Likely this is fallout from the mass-refactorings in bug 968520 and related bugs. I'd recommend working with poiru and froydnj to see if there's any automated follow-up we could do to remove/improve this pattern. On Tue,

Re: nodejs for extensions ?

Node dependency trees tend to be pretty large, so I'm a little concerned here. Has the memory footprint be measured? Cheers, David On 31/07/17 19:45, Michael Cooper wrote: > If you mean using modules from NPM in a browser add-on, the Shield client > extension recently started

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

Well, at least there is the matter of feature detection, for people who want to write code that will work in more than just Firefox. moz-prefixing makes it clear that the feature can be absent on some browsers. Cheers, David On 26/07/17 05:55, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 a

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

Should we moz-prefix moz-specific extensions? On 25/07/17 20:45, Jet Villegas wrote: > Based on product plans I've heard, this sounds like the right approach. We > should try to limit the scope of such browser-specific APIs but it's likely > necessary in some cases (e.g., in the devtools.) > >

Re: More Rust code

of support for Rust-implemented webidl in m-c, which meant that roughly 50% of the code I would be writing would have been bug-prone adapters. Cheers, David On 10/07/17 12:29, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > Hi, > > Firefox now has multiple Rust components, and it's on track to get a > bun

removing "the old way" of signing add-ons

where add-on signing isn't required - for builds where it is required, this API is not used at all). Given all this, the question is do we still need this second API? Does Thunderbird or SeaMonkey use it for any reason, or can we simplify the code-base, reduce build size, etc.? Cheers, David

Proposed W3C Charter: Web Commerce Interest Group

should support or oppose it. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom

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: Phabricator Update, July 2017

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 1:38:18 PM UTC-7, 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

Proposed W3C Charter: (Accessibility) Education and Outreach Working Group

, or if you think we should support or oppose it. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out

Re: Bulk Closing Intermittents

eave-open' keyword so that it gets resolved as FIXED when the changeset is merged from autoland or mozilla-inbound into mozilla-central. (This is easy to forget.) -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozill

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: WebVR Working Group

likely time for the standardization process to also admit that it's no longer just experimenting, but actually shipping real stuff. -David > I would certainly not support at this time and, depending on the > conversations in that group and timing of the below deadline, may suggest > that we oppose. &g

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

On Wednesday 2017-07-05 20:58 -0700, Marcos Caceres wrote: > On July 6, 2017 at 1:40:13 PM, L. David Baron (dba...@dbaron.org) wrote: > > I've taken what you (Tantek) wrote and made minor changes to yield > > the following Formal Objection to the Web Platform WG charter. > >

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

On Tuesday 2017-07-11 11:38 -0700, L. David Baron wrote: > On Wednesday 2017-07-05 11:02 -0700, L. David Baron wrote: > > On Friday 2017-05-12 15:58 -0700, L. David Baron wrote: > > > The W3C gave advance notice that 2 new charters are under > > > development: > >

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

On Wednesday 2017-07-05 11:02 -0700, L. David Baron wrote: > On Friday 2017-05-12 15:58 -0700, L. David Baron wrote: > > The W3C gave advance notice that 2 new charters are under > > development: > > > > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/201

Proposed W3C Charter: WebVR Working Group

support or oppose it. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like

Proposed W3C Charter: WebAssembly Working Group

On Wednesday 2017-05-24 09:30 -0400, L. David Baron wrote: > The W3C gave advance notice that a charter is under development for > a new working group: > > WebAssembly Working Group > https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/webassembly.html > https://github.com/w3c/charter

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

I've taken what you (Tantek) wrote and made minor changes to yield the following Formal Objection to the Web Platform WG charter. Note that I added DOM 4 to the list, although perhaps there was a reason you didn't include it? -David We request that the charter drop all REC track specifications

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

On Friday 2017-05-12 15:58 -0700, L. David Baron wrote: > 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) > >

Proposed W3C Charter: SVG Working Group

, which now includes the SVG Integration work. Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should support or oppose it. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla

Re: JSBC: JavaScript Start-up Bytecode Cache

I suspect that if it's too large, we'll be okay with generating the bytecode on the user's computer. Cheers, David ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

BaseThreadInitThunk potential collateral benefits

%3A31.000Z#graphs -- David Durst [:ddurst] ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to ship: SourceMap header

On Friday 2017-05-26 11:53 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "David" == L David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> writes: > > David> I agree it would be good to have a somewhat more "proper" spec for > David> this. In terms of process, I thin

Re: Intent to ship: SourceMap header

hat more "proper" spec for this. In terms of process, I think probably the most important (and lowest overhead) aspect of "proper" is having the revision history of the specification in publicly visible version control (such as github), and a way for people to raise issues that wi

W3C Charter Advance Notice: WebAssembly Working Group

on this charter can be made in its github repository, or, if necessary, I can make comments that should be made as statements "from Mozilla" on the Advisory Committee mailing list. The charter will likely be submitted to the Advisory Committee for formal review sometime in the futur

Re: Improving visibility of compiler warnings

I'm not sure if this is exactly the same as the ALLOW_COMPILER_WARNINGS that we use for warnings-on-errors, but FWIW as of a couple of months ago I cleaned out the last warning-allowance in our "own" code. ALLOW_COMPILER_WARNINGS usage is now only in external libraries (I'm counting NSS and NSPR

Re: Changing our thread APIs for Quantum DOM scheduling

of that? Also, I had the impression that Quantum DOM scheduling made JS event loop spinning unncessary. Did I miss something? Cheers, David On 5/19/17 1:38 AM, Bill McCloskey wrote: > Hi everyone, > > One of the challenges of the Quantum DOM project is that we will soon have > multiple "

Gecko Profiler Win64 stability

Hi, The Gecko Profiler used to be notoriously unstable on 64-bit Windows. (If you're curious: it's mostly because the unwinding rules for Win64 require the system libraries to do a lot of synchronization, which our stack walker would often call in ways that could deadlock.) Ever since the last

Re: Avoiding jank in async functions/promises?

also: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/requestIdleCallback https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Background_Tasks_API I'm not sure whether it works for privileged (chrome) JS, but it seems like it ought to... -David -- 턞 L. David Baron

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

as statements "from Mozilla" on the Advisory Committee mailing list. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I w

Re: Using references vs. pointers in C++ code

On Wednesday 2017-05-10 13:10 +0200, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 06:56:03PM -0700, L. David Baron wrote: > > On Wednesday 2017-05-10 02:43 +0200, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > > > The issue I have with per-type conventions is that it doesn't sca

Re: Using references vs. pointers in C++ code

ces. We shouldn't treat the two style set classes differently. So it should be passed with pointers, not references. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 Before I built a wa

Re: Using references vs. pointers in C++ code

ill just write a "*" whether or not their existing code guarantees a non-null pointer; at least that was my experience in the early days of Gecko. Perhaps we have better code review now... but I'm somewhat skeptical of that given that I think we've been relying on tests more and review

Fwd: Web Compatibility Testing Survey

Hi All, If you are working on web exposed features could you please take a few minutes to complete the survey. This will help us prioritize work on Web Platform Tests which helps us with our web compatibility story. David -- Forwarded message -- From: <dbu...@mozilla.com>

Proposed W3C Charter: Media and Entertainment IG (was Web and TV IG)

support, comments, or objections through Friday, May 26, 2017. Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should support or oppose it. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢

W3C Proposed & Candidate Recommendations: Social Web

for the first time at this stage, although that's a little less true when review is taking place against a CR rather than a PR.) -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 Before I built

W3C Candidate Recommendation: Beacon

the specification. (I'd note, however, that there have been previous opportunities to make comments, so it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues for the first time at this stage, although that's a little less true now that the review is taking place against a CR rather than a PR.) -David

Proposed W3C Charter: Publishing Working Group

/2017Apr/0021.html -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like

Proposed W3C Charter: TV Control Working Group

. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense

Re: Intent to implement: CSS property `line-height-step`

On Friday 2017-03-31 07:55 -0400, L. David Baron wrote: > On Friday 2017-03-31 12:11 +0800, Tommy Kuo wrote: > > **Summary** > > > > I am intent to implement the property `line-height-step`. And it would be > > disabled behind the pref `layout.css.line-heig

W3C Candidate Recommendation: requestIdleCallback (deadline today)

that's a little less true now that the review is taking place against a CR rather than a PR.) -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know

Re: A reminder about commit messages: they should be useful

undamentally the wrong UI for bug tracking as I described in https://dbaron.org/log/20120816-bug-system and https://dbaron.org/log/20130129-bugzilla and as a result I don't pay much attention to the comments in bug reports; I mainly read the summary. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron

Re: A reminder about commit messages: they should be useful

I'd like to add to this a reminder that commit messages should describe the _change_ and not the _symptom_. In other words, "Bug XYZ: Crash at Foo::Bar" is not a good summary. This is implied by what Boris said, but I've seen enough of these on my pulsebot backscroll that it's worth mentioning

Re: intent to implement/ship: MediaQueryListEvent

the same behavior, since 2014. This sounds good to me; thanks for cleaning this up. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was

Re: Enabling Pointer Events in Firefox (desktop) Nightly on Mac and Linux

That's actually a pretty easy question to answer: https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/unsanctioned-tracking/ (Unsanctioned Web Tracking, W3C TAG Finding 17 July 2015) -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.

Re: Enabling Pointer Events in Firefox (desktop) Nightly on Mac and Linux

nd Chrome already ship it. > > Tests: WPT The list of disabled tests in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1284758 seems somewhat concerning. > Security & Privacy Concerns: none Well, it's implemented in C++, but we don't have a better option right now. -David -- 턞 L. Dav

Re: Intent to implement: CSS property `line-height-step`

ht it would be preferable to put all the extra space above in this case in order to keep the baseline matching the rhythm. (In some cases this would require an additional multiple of the step height.) I might be wrong about this, though; it's worth consulting designers about what behavior is ac

Re: unowned module: Firefox::New Tab Page, help me find an owner

ue. > This just strikes me that we are going to disable until they are all gone then we have dead code in the tree and still no one to own it. Its a longer process that could end up at the same end point. David ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-pl

Re: windows build anti-virus exclusion list?

Try using Sysinternals Process Monitor to see what files MsMpEng.exe is reading. On Fri, Mar 17, 2017, at 04:26 PM, Ben Kelly wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm trying to configure my new windows build machine and noticed that > builds were still somewhat slow. I did: > > 1) Put it in high performance

Renaming nsAString_internal to nsAString

let me know. (I'm already aware of the servo bindings and will address those) Thanks, David ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: The future of commit access policy for core Firefox

problem and fix our nit problem instead of bashing that we can't handle re-reviews because of nits. David On 9 March 2017 at 21:53, Mike Connor <mcon...@mozilla.com> wrote: > (please direct followups to dev-planning, cross-posting to governance, > firefox-dev, dev-platform) > >

Re: The future of commit access policy for core Firefox

o fail for some substantial set of important cases (such as rebases, as you mention). (That's a piece of interdiff from rebasing my own patch queue earlier this week.) -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.m

Re: Sheriff Highlights and Summary in February 2017

not allow us to fail forward like inbound without having to get a sheriff to land the code. I think, and this is my next area to investigate, is the 1 bug per push (the autoland model) could be helping with the percentage of backouts being lower. David On 7 March 2017 at 21:29, Chris Peterson

Re: Please write good commit messages before asking for code review

e, etc. Information about why the static state of the code is correct is better placed in comments than the commit message, although if the patch is large it may need to summarize, or point to particular comments (e.g., "see the comment in Foo.h for a full description of these new methods"). -

Re: Please write good commit messages before asking for code review

as I think they should, for summary views). An old example of this that I like is this commit: https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/830111e10951 -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂

Re: Project Stockwell (reducing intermittents) - March 2017 update

ario where I asked for > more time and was denied that. I think it's often reasonable to expect a *backout* of the cause within less than two weeks, although perhaps not if the immediate trigger was changes in test chunking. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/

Re: Sheriff Highlights and Summary in February 2017

as to why there is a difference. David On 7 March 2017 at 12:57, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote: > On 3/7/17 6:23 AM, David Burns wrote: > >>- Autoland 6%.(24 backouts out of 381 pushes) >>- Inbound 12% (30 backouts out of 251 pushes) >> > >

Re: Sheriff Highlights and Summary in February 2017

this but when I look at https://futurama. theautomatedtester.co.uk/ each week I have seen this result consistenly for about a month. David On 7 March 2017 at 09:03, Carsten Book <cb...@mozilla.com> wrote: > Hi Lawrence, > > most (i would say 95 %) of the backouts are

Re: Intent to ship: WebVR on Windows in Release

e WebVR standards community here? And is your intend to support the features in 1.1 forever, or to take them away at some point? -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 Befor

Re: ANN: Default bug view for BMO changed today!

01/03/2017 21:47, David Lawrence wrote: >> Today, the BMO Team changed the default bug view to the new modal >> view that has been in development for a while. > > I like the fact that you can now change the Product in one step. > > Sadly when resolving a bug, ther

ANN: Default bug view for BMO changed today!

Today, the BMO Team changed the default bug view to the new modal view that has been in development for a while. For those who would like to use the old form, instructions on how to switch back are below in the background information. The old form will, however, be removed one day, so please

Re: Please consider whether new APIs/functionality should be disabled by default in sandboxed iframes

this questions/raise: * the feature is not implemented yet * other browsers vendors are reading the "intent to" emails, so there is an opportunity for this question to be fixed in an interoperable manner David Le mercredi 11 janvier 2017 18:34:56 UTC+1, Boris Zbarsky a écrit : > When add

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >