Proposed W3C Charter: Web Application Security Working Group

skimmed the diffs relative to the previous charter. -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

ANN: Finally changing the default bug view for BMO on March 1st, 2017

://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=settings#ui_experiments_row [4] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1150541 [5] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=bugzilla.mozilla.org=User%20Interface:%20Modal [6] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1273046 -- David

Re: Should &&/|| really be at the end of lines?

One thing I like about trailing operators is that they tend to match what you'd find in bullet-point prose. Here's a made-up example: You can apply for a refund of your travel insurance policy if: * You cancel within 7 days of purchase, and * You have not yet begun your journey, and * You have

Re: Should &&/|| really be at the end of lines?

vision to skip), but then we need to balance it against the cost of the increased disruption to blame that makes understanding the history of our code harder. -David > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:04 PM, <gsquel...@mozilla.com> wrote: > > There's an ongoing effort to use clang-forma

Re: Project Stockwell - February 2017 update

This also makes it much harder to tell if bugs are being mis-classified (e.g., two different problems being starred into one bug). (I thought the point of structured logging was to make it easier to get this sort of data.) -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaro

Re: Key measurements from memory reports are now shown by crash-stats.m.o

Nice! I see that these fields are available in Super Search already, which is great. This is going to make search queries really powerful. On Tue, Feb 14, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > Hi, > > For a long time we have collected a memory report for most crash reports > where the

Re: Changing the representation of rectangles in platform code

Is there a specific problem that's being solved by this proposal? It would be helpful to make this a bit more concrete, like "these benchmarks go x% faster", or "here's a list of overflow bugs that will just vanish", or "here's some upcoming work that this would facilitate". On Thu, Feb 9, 2017

Re: Please don't abuse "No bug" in commit messages

e of https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Mozilla/Developer_guide/C ommitting_Rules_and_Responsibilities will be followed up. David On 3 February 2017 at 19:01, Steve Fink <sf...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 02/03/2017 09:29 AM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote: > >> On 03/02/2017 15

Re: Please don't abuse "No bug" in commit messages

I have raised a bug[1] to block these types of commits in the future. This is an unnecessary risk that we are taking. I also think that we need to remove this as acceptable practice from the MDN page. David [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1336459 On 3 February 2017 at 15:11

Re: [ANN] Changing the default bug view for BMO

Unfortunately, we will need to postpone the changeover and it will not be happening tomorrow as announced. Due to some unplanned changes related to security and also some blockers are still being worked on, it has taken longer then expected to bring you the best possible experience for the new

Re: Adding Rust code to Gecko, now documented

Bug 1231711, but I never got to do it, unfortunately. On 26/01/17 08:01, zbranie...@mozilla.com wrote: > On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 5:15:26 AM UTC-8, David Teller wrote: >> Ok. My usecase is the reimplementation of OS.File in Rust, which should >> be pretty straightforward

Re: Deprecating XUL in new UI

t timeframe? What does that do to shipping risk? I realize churn creates risk, but I seem to recall XBL is getting in the way for Quantum styling? Cheers, David > > bholley > > > > > > -Boris > > > > ___ > > d

Re: Deprecating XUL in new UI

Hi all, so as not to leave this hanging: On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Axel Hecht wrote: > Am 16/01/2017 um 21:43 schrieb Dave Townsend: > >> >> What other features do we depend on in XUL that I haven't listed? >> >> > Accessibility? Not sure how big the difference is there

Re: What are your use cases for the Touch Bar on the new MacBook Pro?

To build upon the "tab bar" idea: scrolling quickly among my 300+ tabs. On 03/01/17 21:50, sev...@gmail.com wrote: > Off the top of my head ideas: > > Quick-access to the back, forward, refresh, bookmark, share buttons could be > a good. Tab bar might be handy too, so with a touch of my finger

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Verifiable Claims Working Group

OK, I sent the response far enough before the deadline (which is Sunday January 15) that other W3C members may have a chance to see it before the deadline: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2016Dec/0010.html -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http

W3C Proposed Recommendation: Data on the Web Best Practices

it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues for the first time at this stage.) My inclination is to abstain from this review, but could probably be convinced to send other forms of supportive response. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢

W3C Proposed Recommendation: Web Cryptography API

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 What I was walling

6 W3C Candidate Recommendations on XPath and XQuery

than a PR.) However, I'd note that I'm inclined to abstain from this review. This is a set of XML-related work that's happening at W3C and isn't particularly related to the browser world these days. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla

W3C Candidate Recommendation: Digital Publishing WAI-ARIA Module 1.0

, 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 -- 턞 L. David Baron

5 W3C Candidate Recommendations from Social Web WG

at this stage, although that's a little less true now that the review is taking place against a CR rather than a PR.) I suspect Tantek is in support given that he's a co-chair of the working group. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Verifiable Claims Working Group

Here's an attempt to write up comments to submit on this charter. I'm not sure I understood ekr's reply to mt, though. So corrections and clarifications are certainly welcome. Sorry for the delay circling back to this. -David We don't think the W3C should be putting resources behind

Re: Intent to Implement CSS Box Alignment on block containers

t* work on blocks. I'm happy to see this happen sooner rather than later, to reduce this risk. -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: Intent to Implement: adding vector effects non-scaling-size, non-rotation and fixed-position to SVG

age, when used as a background-image or border-image, etc.? -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

Re: Intent to implement and ship: CSS display:flow-root

f the implementation > > Security & Privacy Concerns: none Sounds good to me, except that I think it's worth explicitly raising on www-style that we're planning to ship this, since the spec for it isn't yet in (or near) CR. (The bug says the editors believe the fe

Re: Firefox Behaving Improperly to Standard

, and it's overridden by the more specific language that actually says how overflow handling should work. > 4) overflow:auto is ignored both in interpretation and scrollbar implications No idea what you mean by this. But I'm pretty sure changing this would lead to unexpected scrollbars o

Re: Intent to ship: CSS Mask Image

e.cgi?id=1312613=1_resolved=0 I'm in support of shipping this work, assuming that the performance concerns that delayed it have been addressed. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂

W3C Candidate Recommendation: Performance Timeline Level 2

. (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 -- 턞 L. David

Proposed W3C Charter: Verifiable Claims 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

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: SVG Working Group

On Friday 2016-12-09 18:15 -1000, L. David Baron wrote: > The W3C is proposing a revised charter for: > > Web Security Interest Group > https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/websec-ig.html > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2016Nov/0009.html OK, ple

Proposed W3C Charter: Web Security Interest Group

. 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 https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂

Proposed W3C Charter: SVG Working Group

. 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 https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂

Proposed W3C Charter: Tracking Protection Working Group

. 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 https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

On Friday 2016-12-09 18:12 -1000, L. David Baron wrote: > The W3C is proposing a new charter for: Please ignore this thread, sorry. I resent the SVG charter with a correct subject line. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozi

Proposed W3C Charter: SVG Working Group

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 built a wall I'd ask

Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

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 built a wall I'd ask

Re: Intent to implement: CSS {background,mask}-repeat-{x/y} properties

ity risk. If you're analyzing that risk, it doesn't matter what developer tools do. What matters is whether the presence of the properties in Web content does something that we also need to do if we want the content to behave in the same way. I can't tell from your comments which other browse

Re: Intent to implement: CSS {background,mask}-repeat-{x/y} properties

gnized" status mean, and how does it differ from "Shipped"? -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 wallin

Re: Adding Rust code to Gecko, now documented

tricky it is to handle with a combo of Rust and C++. Thanks, David On 10/11/16 02:43, Bobby Holley wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:31 PM, David Teller <dtel...@mozilla.com > <mailto:dtel...@mozilla.com>> wrote: > > \o/ > > Do we already have a story f

Build System Project - Latest Update

in Mozilla Central but this is tiny task (dependencies of bug 1295937 <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1295937>). The NSS work is blocking the SCCache2 work. With the current NSS patches we are getting green build so expect this work to be complete by the end of the week.

Re: Please do not add any new CppUnitTests/GeckoCppUnitTests

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016, at 06:17 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:04:05AM +1100, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > > > > > CppUnitTests are fine to keep. > > > > > > Having said that, IMO it is

Re: Adding Rust code to Gecko, now documented

\o/ Do we already have a story for implementing WebIDL in Rust? Cheers, David On 09/11/16 12:20, Ted Mielczarek wrote: > I recently wrote some documentation on how to add Rust code to Gecko: > http://gecko.readthedocs.io/en/latest/build/buildsystem/rust.html > > It shou

W3C Proposed Recommendation: CSP2 (Content Security Policy 2)

or formally object to something, please say so in this thread. (I'd note, however, that there have been many previous opportunities to make comments, so it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues for the first time at this stage.) -David -- 턞 L. David Baron

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Automotive Working Group

OK, here's a reformulation that takes a somewhat stronger position (mainly by checking the other box, and adding the paragraph at the end). -David [X] opposes this Charter and requests that this group not be created [Formal Objection] (your details below). We're concerned enough about

Proposed W3C Charter: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

. 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. This group is a proposed reformulation of the current Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) working group. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Automotive Working Group

Eastern Time.) -David We're concerned enough about the security and privacy aspects of this charter and the associated work that we believe this effort is not currently ready to begin development on the Recommendation track. We have a number of concerns about the security aspects of this work

W3C Proposed Recommendation: Webmention

for the first time at this stage.) -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: Proposed W3C Charter: Audio Working Group

re specifically as well. > > * Or, if no such community group exists, make it clearer that it's > a hypothetical community group. (and record it as a support-with-optional-changes). -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla

Build System Project - Latest Update

95937 <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1295937> and for Libffi (bug 1262155 <https://bug98304.bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1262155>). David [1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/BWuB6S7qxUc/9HzVRXg3CAAJ

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Second Screen Working Group

I've submitted a response in support of the charter, without comments. -David On Monday 2016-10-24 10:47 +0800, Shih-Chiang Chien wrote: > Support revised charter. > > The revised charter creates some flexibility for us to promote Flyweb as a > new feature in Presentation API Level

W3C Proposed Recommendation: Media Source Extensions (MSE)

comments, so it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues for the first time at this stage.) (This is something we implement in Gecko, although I'm not sure if we implement everything in the spec, or how involved Mozilla folks have been in the spec process.) -David -- 턞 L. David

Proposed W3C Charter: Automotive Working Group

involved in the discussions that led to this charter. -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

Proposed W3C Charter: Audio Working Group

/details?group=46884=1=org#_MozillaFoundation -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

Proposed W3C Charter: Second Screen Working Group

. 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. Mozilla does have participants in this group: https://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=74168=1=org#_MozillaFoundation -David -- 턞 L

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

The comments I submitted on the WoT charter are archived at: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2016Oct/0004.html -David On Friday 2016-10-14 15:03 +0100, Benjamin Francis wrote: > Hi David, > > We collected some feedback in a document > <https://docs.google

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: HTML 5.1

The comments submitted on HTML 5.1 are archived at: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2016Oct/0003.html -David On Thursday 2016-10-13 17:35 -0700, Tantek Çelik wrote: > For the record, I have reviewed the HTML5.1 changes: > > https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/PR-html51

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: HTML 5.1

-11 https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/507 -David > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 9:46 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: > > A W3C Proposed Recommendation is available for the membership of W3C > > (including Mozilla) to vote on, before it proceeds to the final > >

Re: Intent to ship: css multi-column properties (unprefixed)

n-span that I've seen have also felt like workarounds for lack of proper section markup. If developers want a column layout for their sections, they should specify that. -David > On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 1:28:00 AM UTC-4, Mike Taylor wrote: > > On 10/7/16 5:07 PM, neerjapanch.

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: WebIDL Level 1

things to Recommendation every so often so that it's unambiguous that they're covered by the W3C's patent policy. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 Before I built a wall I'

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: WebIDL Level 1

On Tuesday 2016-10-11 07:07 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tuesday, 11 October 2016, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: > > > I'd note that Mozillians have been very involved in editing the > > specification, but I'm not entirely sure of our level of involv

Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

this is more of a (set of?) research projects. W3C has an existing Interest Group (not a Working Group, so not designed to write Recommendation-track specifications) in this area: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/ . -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla

W3C Proposed Recommendation: WebIDL Level 1

at this stage.) I'd note that Mozillians have been very involved in editing the specification, but I'm not entirely sure of our level of involvement in stabilizing the "release branch" to be a Level 1 recommendation. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.

W3C Proposed Recommendation: HTML 5.1

.) Note that this specification is somewhat controversial for various reasons, mainly related to the forking of the specification from the WHATWG copy, the quality of the work done on it since the fork, and some of the particular modifications that have been made since that fork. -David -- 턞 L

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Platform Working Group

On Friday 2016-09-30 14:02 -0700, Tantek Çelik wrote: > Also, just found this in the charter: > announcement > Not really acceptable. I think it should link to the same URL as the other "(announcement)" link. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http:

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Platform Working Group

ir charter scope. Or are these things that are just starting out rather than things that have been in progress for a while? (That seems unlikely, since I've been hearing about some of them for quite a while.) -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozil

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Platform Working Group

On Thursday 2016-09-29 10:42 +0200, Ms2ger wrote: > On 29/09/16 03:02, L. David Baron wrote: > > The W3C is proposing a revised charter for: > > > > Web Platform Working Group (formerly Web Applications WG & HTML WG) > > https://www.w3.org/2016/08/web-platform

Proposed W3C Charter: Web Platform Working Group

ents or objections through this Friday, September 30. 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 Moz

Re: So, what's the point of Cu.import, these days?

confirmation from @jonco that this can be done. Essentially, past some point in the migration, `Cu.import` becomes a sync version of the ES7's `import()` function. If this works (and it's a pretty big "if"), we can use more or less the same steps as above. Cheers, David [1] https://gist.

Re: So, what's the point of Cu.import, these days?

I have posted a draft of a plan for migrating from JSM to ES6 modules here: https://gist.github.com/Yoric/2a7c8395377c7187ebf02219980b6f4d Cheers, David ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo

Re: So, what's the point of Cu.import, these days?

On 27/09/16 19:35, Zibi Braniecki wrote: > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 2:28:54 AM UTC-7, David Teller wrote: >> If I understand ES6 modules correctly, two imports from the same webpage >> will return the same module instance, right? > > I don't think this is a cor

Re: So, what's the point of Cu.import, these days?

to these. Cheers, David [1] https://flowtype.org/docs/modules.html#_ On 27/09/16 17:00, David Bruant wrote: > Le mardi 27 septembre 2016 14:49:36 UTC+2, David Teller a écrit : >> I have opened bug 1305669 with one possible strategy for migrating >> towards RequireJS. &g

Re: So, what's the point of Cu.import, these days?

Le mardi 27 septembre 2016 14:49:36 UTC+2, David Teller a écrit : > I have opened bug 1305669 with one possible strategy for migrating > towards RequireJS. RequireJS [1] is a peculiar choice for chrome code especially if your goal is static analysis. From this thread and what I read

Re: So, what's the point of Cu.import, these days?

On 27/09/16 11:58, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote: > On 27/09/2016 10:28, David Teller wrote: >> How hard would it be to consider all chrome code (of a JSRuntime) as a >> single webpage? That's pretty much a requirement for any module loader >> we would use for our chrome code. >

Re: So, what's the point of Cu.import, these days?

I have opened bug 1305669 with one possible strategy for migrating towards RequireJS. Cheers, David On 25/09/16 01:16, Bobby Holley wrote: > If the conversion is tractable and we end up with module ergonomics that > frontend developers are happy with, I'm certainly in favor of thi

Re: So, what's the point of Cu.import, these days?

king with ES6 modules. Perhaps by requiring these tests to continue using a `Cu.import` modified to work with ES6 modules. That's all from the top of my head. At this stage, I suspect that the best gain/effort ratio is migrating to RequireJS modules, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong. Chee

Re: So, what's the point of Cu.import, these days?

I agree that my formulation was poor, but that's what I meant: in *a single webpage*, all these modules behave the same wrt the underlying objects. On 26/09/16 18:14, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 9/26/16 12:09 PM, David Teller wrote: >> In web content, that's also the case with ES6 an

Re: So, what's the point of Cu.import, these days?

In web content, that's also the case with ES6 and require-style modules. I realize that it's a bit more complicated in chrome code, with all the XUL + XBL + XPCOM + subscript loader, but I believe that we should be able to reach the same result. Cheers, David On 26/09/16 18:01, Joshua Cranmer

Re: So, what's the point of Cu.import, these days?

it to be a regular function/method call. If executing this JS code means that we need to somehow load modules, this means that the loading needs to block the caller. Is this the case already? Cheers, David On 26/09/16 12:33, jcoppe...@mozilla.com wrote: > On Sunday, 25 September 2016 07:32:32 UT

Re: So, what's the point of Cu.import, these days?

What's the current status of the implementation of ES6 modules? Also, to use them in chrome code, can we support synchronous loading? Or would we need to make the rewrite more complicated to support asynchronous loading? On 25/09/16 02:35, Bill McCloskey wrote: > If we're going to do a mass

So, what's the point of Cu.import, these days?

to not do this? Cheers, David ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: CSS Working Group

On Monday 2016-08-29 17:21 -0700, L. David Baron wrote: > The W3C is proposing a revised charter for: > > Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Working Group > https://www.w3.org/Style/2016/css-2016.html > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2016Aug/.html &

Re: Reorganization of Firefox-UI tests in mozilla-central

s also occurred on other tests, tracked in different bugs). This encourages ignoring the bugs and just looking at orangefactor for what's interesting/relevant. 2. spreading out a single problem across >100 bugs [1] leads to the severity of that problem being ignored for extended periods o

Build System Project - Latest Update

Below is a highlight of all work the build peers have done since the last report[1]. The build peers have been working to get faster builds in automation as well as for local developers. We have landed changes to stop generating XPIDL sources in artifact builds[2], which is a performance and

Proposed W3C Charter: CSS Working Group

, September 2. 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 https://www.mozilla.org

Build System Project - Latest Update

Below is a highlight of all work the build peers have done since the last report[1]. The build peers have been working to get faster builds in automation as well as well as local developers. We have updated the way that Taskcluster decision and linting jobs use version control[2]. This has driven

Re: Proposed change to Commit Access Policy Level 3

Looks great to me! David On 4 August 2016 at 06:20, Mitchell Baker <mitch...@mozilla.com> wrote: > Over time we've made a series of exceptions to the level 3 requirements > for Sheriffs and this proposal addresses that. > > > The current Policy for level 3 is: > >

Build System Project - Latest Update

some great work with updating MozillaBuild to msys2 and now has artifact builds working there. [1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/VH3KD4ZyNL0/befnqd7WPQAJ David ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https

Re: Reproducible builds

Le lundi 18 juillet 2016 20:57:12 UTC+2, Gregory Szorc a écrit : > On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 9:38 AM, David Bruant <bruan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We already have deterministic packaging in some parts of Firefox (notably > most XPIs and omni.ja files). We've done this by implemen

Reproducible builds

uld probably be enough for now IMHO. People can always audit the image by traversing the image file system to see whether they find something fishy. Does a comparable build seems like a good end-goal? David [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug

Re: Faster gecko builds with IceCC on Mac and Linux

the next fortnight to make sure we havent regressed anything. After that we will be working towards making it available to engineers before the end of Q3 (at least on one platform). David [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/mozilla.dev.platform/Build$20System$20Project$20 On 4

Re: Gecko shutdown (London session)

with AsyncShutdown had finished shutting down, we could call _exit(0). Cheers, David On 30/06/16 17:41, Aaron Klotz wrote: > Did the now-defunct exit(0) project ever come up in this discussion? > > See bugs 662444 and 826143. This was a perf team project back in the > Snapp

Re: Tier-1 for Fennec api-15 Debug builds in TaskCluster at end of week (July 1st)

-jobs UI useful in practice yet because it requires so much clicking to trigger all the jobs for other platforms once one platform passes. Bug 1272212 would help.) -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.m

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Interest Group

On Monday 2016-06-20 01:38 -0700, mar...@marcosc.com wrote: > On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 7:06:39 PM UTC+10, David Baron wrote: > > > 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 >

Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Interest Group

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 https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂

Re: Basic Auth Prevalence (was Re: Intent to ship: Treat cookies set over non-secure HTTP as session cookies)

that handshake. I suspect in these cases people won't have all the necessary security setup if it is behind some kind of firewall. Just a thought. David On 11 June 2016 at 03:27, Jason Duell <jdu...@mozilla.com> wrote: > This data also smells weird to me. 8% of pages using basic auth s

Proposed W3C Charter: Web Performance 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

W3C Proposed Recommendation: Subresource Integrity (SRI)

form to bring up fundamental issues for the first time at this stage.) If you do so, please make sure to cc: my email, as I won't be checking the list prior to the deadline for comments. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla

Re: ARIA membership and role="password"

Hi Johnathan, Our lack of direct W3C ARIA involvement recently is mainly due to time/resource constraints and we have influence via proxy. I think ARIA is best scoped as passive semantics used to describe the reality of how web developers (ab)use HTML. It is not unreasonable to argue that ARIA,

Build System Project - Latest Update

Below is a highlight of all work the build peers have done since the last report[1]. We have reduced the time it takes to run reftests as well as the amount of I/O that happens during the tests by disabling some features in Firefox that are not used during the test. This has saved over 50GB of

Re: Common crashes due to MOZ_CRASH and MOZ_RELEASE_ASSERT

ld it make sense for jemalloc to try allocating memory in smaller chunks when large ones aren't available? -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 kno

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

't have a Mac so I can't check what the behavior is. There's a screenshot in: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1255588#c8 (and #c9) (which is the bug that made the necessary changes for the Mac OS X support change in Firefox 49). -David > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Ralph Gil

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