thanks to dylan's work on bug 489028, bugzilla now tracks when you view
a bug, allowing you to search for bugs which have been updated since you
last visited them.
see my blog post for more details: http://wp.me/p1JUqW-9M
--
byron jones - :glob - bugzilla.mozilla.org team -
On Jun 4, 2014, at 12:42 AM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
That would require try/catch around all the invert() calls. This is
Dirk Schulze wrote:
There was an argument that:
if (matrix.isInvertible())
matrix.invert();
would force UAs to compute the determinant twice. Actually, UAs can be very
smart about that. The determinant is a simple double. It can be stored and
invalidated as needed internally. (If it
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Trevor Saunders trev.saund...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 12:08:52PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-06-03, 5:57 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Nathan Froyd froy...@mozilla.com wrote:
Assuming that ICU is already
On 04 Jun 2014, at 00:33, James Graham ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk wrote:
On 03/06/14 20:34, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
I'm arguing against Assert.jsm using the commonjs API names.
And I am arguing against using the CommonJS semantics. If we are adding
new assertions it shouldn't be ones that
That sounds quite useful.
Thanks,
David
On 04/06/14 08:34, Byron Jones wrote:
thanks to dylan's work on bug 489028, bugzilla now tracks when you view
a bug, allowing you to search for bugs which have been updated since you
last visited them.
see my blog post for more details:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Till Schneidereit
t...@tillschneidereit.net wrote:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, inverse() is already spec'd to throw if the
On 04/06/2014 08:34, Byron Jones wrote:
thanks to dylan's work on bug 489028, bugzilla now tracks when you view
a bug, allowing you to search for bugs which have been updated since you
last visited them.
see my blog post for more details: http://wp.me/p1JUqW-9M
Excellent. Thanks.
Just a
Hi folks. I should introduce myself first. I'm a new product manager working on
Firefox for Desktop. I've been working on an assessment of launching 64 bit for
about 6 weeks. In that time, I've had conversations with representatives from
every engineering and QA team whose work would be
Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
Just a question, in a custom search, the Last Visit shows 2014-06-04
05:47:42 instead of more than an hour ago.
yes - relative dates are not used in many places in bugzilla.
the most visible place where they are used is the dashboard, which is
where i took my
On 2014-06-04, 2:34 AM, Byron Jones wrote:
thanks to dylan's work on bug 489028, bugzilla now tracks when you view
a bug, allowing you to search for bugs which have been updated since you
last visited them.
see my blog post for more details: http://wp.me/p1JUqW-9M
This is so amazing. As a
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 2014-06-04, 2:34 AM, Byron Jones wrote:
thanks to dylan's work on bug 489028, bugzilla now tracks when you view
a bug, allowing you to search for bugs which have been updated since you
last visited them.
see my
On 2014-06-04, 5:45 AM, Mike de Boer wrote:
On 04 Jun 2014, at 00:33, James Graham ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk wrote:
On 03/06/14 20:34, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
I'm arguing against Assert.jsm using the commonjs API names.
And I am arguing against using the CommonJS semantics. If we are adding
new
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Chris Peterson cpeter...@mozilla.com
wrote:
http://blog.chromium.org/2014/06/try-out-new-64-bit-windows-
canary-and.html
What is the status of Firefox builds for Win64? When Mozilla releases
Win64 builds (again), we'll be seen as reacting to Google when we've
On 04 Jun 2014, at 19:20, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2014-06-04, 5:45 AM, Mike de Boer wrote:
On 04 Jun 2014, at 00:33, James Graham ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk wrote:
On 03/06/14 20:34, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
I'm arguing against Assert.jsm using the commonjs API names.
On 6/4/2014 1:20 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
The other thing that you need to note is that there is years of
experience behind each one of our test frameworks, and there are
probably several hundred thousand lines of code written against any of
them. And there are many many people who have been
On 2014-06-04, 1:42 PM, Mike de Boer wrote:
On 04 Jun 2014, at 19:20, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com
mailto:ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2014-06-04, 5:45 AM, Mike de Boer wrote:
On 04 Jun 2014, at 00:33, James Graham ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk
mailto:ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk wrote:
On
On 6/4/14, 1:42 PM, Mike de Boer wrote:
I wasn’t implying that they’re broken at all, it’s just that James was hinting
at that.
Our existing testing frameworks are broken in terms of the goals of the
testharness framework, as far as I understand.
For example, one of the primary goals of
Great point Brian, I should've mentioned the relation to E10S and sandboxing
because as you suggest, it's complicated.
- E10S and sandboxing help 32 bit users as well as 64 and arguably offer the
most immediate relief to the most users experiencing stability issues. Most of
the folks I spoke
On 6/4/14, 1:56 PM, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
The inconsistency between our various test harnesses makes it harder
than necessary to write different types of tests.
Yes, agreed.
RE: the discussion of testharness.js etc, I think those are even farther
afield, since the testing model there is much
On 04/06/14 18:42, Mike de Boer wrote:
On 04 Jun 2014, at 19:20, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 2014-06-04, 5:45 AM, Mike de Boer wrote:
On 04 Jun 2014, at 00:33, James Graham ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk
wrote:
On 03/06/14 20:34, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
I'm arguing against
- Add-ons are going to break in both projects. We need to take the
developer community's pain into consideration.
What is the problem with addons and win64, binary addons? For e10s JS-only
addons are problematic as well, so the level of problems we can expect here
are quite different.
I don't
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Bobby Holley bobbyhol...@gmail.com wrote:
Holy moly this is incredible! So this means that I can stop reading
bugmail, and rely entirely on the dashboard with no loss of information?
Hm, seems like this isn't really the case. This feature only helps for bugs
On 2014-06-04, 3:58 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Bobby Holley bobbyhol...@gmail.com
mailto:bobbyhol...@gmail.com wrote:
Holy moly this is incredible! So this means that I can stop reading
bugmail, and rely entirely on the dashboard with no loss of
Filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1020558
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 2014-06-04, 3:58 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Bobby Holley bobbyhol...@gmail.com
mailto:bobbyhol...@gmail.com wrote:
Bug 996061 has now landed on inbound. Prior to this bug, we included
non-[scriptable] XPIDL interfaces into the internal typelibs shipped with
Firefox. This is no longer the case: interfaces that are not marked
[scriptable] and are not referenced by other [scriptable] interfaces will be
On 2014-06-04, 4:45 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
Bug 996061 has now landed on inbound. Prior to this bug, we included
non-[scriptable] XPIDL interfaces into the internal typelibs shipped with
Firefox. This is no longer the case: interfaces that are not marked
[scriptable] and are not referenced
On 6/4/14, 10:32 AM, Brian Smith wrote:
Does it make sense to ship 64-bit Firefox before shipping
mutli-process/sandboxed Firefox? I worry that 64-bit Firefox will be
more memory hungry than 32-bit Firefox and if it lands first then it
will be harder to land multi-process Firefox which is
In general, is “this is how it worked with SVGMatrix” one of the design
principles?
I was hoping this would be the time matrix rotate() method goes to radians,
like the canvas rotate, and unlike SVGMatrix version that takes degrees...
--
- Milan
On Jun 3, 2014, at 18:26 , Rik Cabanier
On 06/03/2014 07:32 AM, Gabor Krizsanits wrote:
Currently m-c does not build with gcc 4.6 on ubuntu because something
similar. After
updating to 4.8 I got some warning in webrtc code, so I had to turn off
warning-as-errors.
FWIW, you can work around that with ac_add_options
On 06/03/2014 04:25 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
As for warning-as-errors, it's not meant to be used for local builds,
because different compilers don't come with the same set of warnings.
I think that might be putting it a bit too strongly. Warnings-as-errors
absolutely *is* meant to be used with
I've added the tiny methods can be written in a single line rule.
Search for TinyFunction and LargerFunction at
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Developer_guide/Coding_Style#Classes
Nick
___
dev-platform mailing list
On 05/06/14 07:20, Milan Sreckovic wrote:
In general, is “this is how it worked with SVGMatrix” one of the
design principles?
I was hoping this would be the time matrix rotate() method goes to
radians, like the canvas rotate, and unlike SVGMatrix version that
takes degrees...
By the way, in
2014-06-04 20:28 GMT-04:00 Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au:
On 05/06/14 07:20, Milan Sreckovic wrote:
In general, is “this is how it worked with SVGMatrix” one of the
design principles?
I was hoping this would be the time matrix rotate() method goes to
radians, like the canvas rotate, and
So IIUC this means that script can't call any methods on these interfaces,
so the only remaining users could be binary extension components and those
within libxul itself. So if we're willing to ignore the former, and
eliminate the latter, then we can remove these interfaces entirely? Or do
we
I still don't believe either of you :) Obviously my position isn't
let's make it it more frustrating to write tests; I think you're
both vastly overstating the costs of switching to a slightly
different, similar API. Any change is initially jarring, but I just
don't buy that this change would
On Jun 5, 2014, at 2:28 AM, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au wrote:
On 05/06/14 07:20, Milan Sreckovic wrote:
In general, is “this is how it worked with SVGMatrix” one of the
design principles?
I was hoping this would be the time matrix rotate() method goes to
radians, like the canvas
On Jun 5, 2014, at 2:47 AM, Benoit Jacob jacob.benoi...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-06-04 20:28 GMT-04:00 Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au:
On 05/06/14 07:20, Milan Sreckovic wrote:
In general, is “this is how it worked with SVGMatrix” one of the
design principles?
I was hoping this would
Byron Jones wrote:
thanks to dylan's work on bug 489028, bugzilla now tracks when you
view a bug, allowing you to search for bugs which have been updated
since you last visited them.
I shared a basic search which I call Unseen Changes.
I was slightly disappointed that I couldn't search for
On 04/06/2014 07:34, Byron Jones wrote:
thanks to dylan's work on bug 489028, bugzilla now tracks when you view
a bug, allowing you to search for bugs which have been updated since you
last visited them.
see my blog post for more details: http://wp.me/p1JUqW-9M
Hrm. But this includes trivial
40 matches
Mail list logo
