On 6/4/14, 11:30 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
- benefits to shared API/implementation seem uncontroversial
Agreed.
- specifically, consistency between mochitest/SimpleTest-based
harnesses (mochitest-plain/mochitest-chrome/mochitest-browser) and
xpcshell tests is what we care about primarily. I
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 5:47 PM, 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
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Milan Sreckovic msrecko...@mozilla.com
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
On 04.06.2014 11:45, Mike de Boer wrote:
The reason CommonJS came into view was not because of it’s semantic
superiority, but because of its similarity to both the XPCShell-test and
Mochitest assertion styles and implementation.
This way I thought we could circumvent ppl to get worried about
On 05.06.2014 09:54, Dao wrote:
On 04.06.2014 11:45, Mike de Boer wrote:
The reason CommonJS came into view was not because of it’s semantic
superiority, but because of its similarity to both the XPCShell-test
and Mochitest assertion styles and implementation.
This way I thought we could
On 05 Jun 2014, at 09:54, Dao d...@design-noir.de wrote:
On 04.06.2014 11:45, Mike de Boer wrote:
The reason CommonJS came into view was not because of it’s semantic
superiority, but because of its similarity to both the XPCShell-test and
Mochitest assertion styles and implementation.
This
On 05.06.2014 11:38, Mike de Boer wrote:
On 05 Jun 2014, at 09:54, Dao d...@design-noir.de wrote:
On 04.06.2014 11:45, Mike de Boer wrote:
The reason CommonJS came into view was not because of it’s semantic
superiority, but because of its similarity to both the XPCShell-test and
Mochitest
On 05 Jun 2014, at 12:00, Dao d...@design-noir.de wrote:
On 05.06.2014 11:38, Mike de Boer wrote:
On 05 Jun 2014, at 09:54, Dao d...@design-noir.de wrote:
On 04.06.2014 11:45, Mike de Boer wrote:
The reason CommonJS came into view was not because of it’s semantic
superiority, but because
2014-06-05 2:48 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Milan Sreckovic msrecko...@mozilla.com
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
On 04/06/2014 22:32, jmor...@mozilla.com wrote:
We have a good understanding of the work required. The development
work, as you might suspect, is largely done. We still produce 64 bit
builds. The notable areas remaining are:
- completing test coverage
- working on plugin/add-on
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Philip Chee philip.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/06/2014 22:32, jmor...@mozilla.com wrote:
We have a good understanding of the work required. The development
work, as you might suspect, is largely done. We still produce 64 bit
builds. The notable areas
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Benoit Jacob jacob.benoi...@gmail.com
wrote:
2014-06-05 2:48 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Milan Sreckovic msrecko...@mozilla.com
wrote:
In general, is “this is how it worked with SVGMatrix” one of the design
2014-06-05 9:08 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Benoit Jacob jacob.benoi...@gmail.com
wrote:
2014-06-05 2:48 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Milan Sreckovic msrecko...@mozilla.com
wrote:
In
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Benoit Jacob jacob.benoi...@gmail.com
wrote:
2014-06-05 9:08 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Benoit Jacob jacob.benoi...@gmail.com
wrote:
2014-06-05 2:48 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com:
On
On 2014-06-04, 3:01 PM, Neil wrote:
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
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch gijskruitbo...@gmail.com
wrote:
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
jmor...@mozilla.com schrieb:
Launching 64 bit first may be a stability bandaid for users who have 64 bit and
adequate memory.
I would want to see decently founded comparative stats from a wide
variety of systems before claiming that.
bsmedberg and others have done some analysis that looks to
On 05/06/2014 15:56, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch gijskruitbo...@gmail.com
wrote:
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
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
It's also security boost for 64 bit users.
Could someone please explain why you and Google claim 64bit to be more
secure? This is a new argument to me and I wonder what's behind it.
As stated in Google's announcement[1],
Our extension injects styles into webpages via a protocol defined using our own
protocol handler using link rel=stylesheet. We have our own
nsIContentPolicy which we use to enforce which resources from this protocol can
be injected into content pages.
The problem is that on sites the enforce
On 6/5/14, 11:39 AM, Matthew Gertner wrote:
Our extension injects styles into webpages via a protocol defined using our own protocol
handler using link rel=stylesheet. We have our own nsIContentPolicy which
we use to enforce which resources from this protocol can be injected into content
These are two good questions Robert. Both points are nuanced and merit more
discussion.
1. Re: 64 bit as a bandaid for OOM. This is an alternate viewpoint that a few
folks advanced for discussion. I assumed this meant (at the least) PCs with
4GB physical memory. I'm not sure if this applies
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 8:34 AM, J. Ryan Stinnett jry...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
It's also security boost for 64 bit users.
Could someone please explain why you and Google claim 64bit to be more
secure? This is a new argument
On 6/5/2014 12:31 PM, jmor...@mozilla.com wrote:
These are two good questions Robert. Both points are nuanced and merit more
discussion.
1. Re: 64 bit as a bandaid for OOM. This is an alternate viewpoint that a few
folks advanced for discussion. I assumed this meant (at the least) PCs with
The W3C is proposing a new charter for two groups:
Social Web Working Group
http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-wg-charter.html
Social Interest Group
http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-ig-charter.html
both in:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Dirk Schulze dschu...@adobe.com wrote:
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
It seems like we're getting to agreement. (Please tell me if I'm wrong
about this)
There are 2 things that I have questions about:
1. isIdentity()
We settled that this should mean that the matrix was never changed to a non
identity state.
This means that the following code:
var m = new
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 3:33 AM, Mike de Boer mdeb...@mozilla.com wrote:
I want that to happen, which is most ‘cost-efficient’; if that’s moving the
implementation of `is`, `isnot`, `ise` to a separate module whilst keeping
the method names available to all Mochitest(-browser) tests, than we
On Jun 5, 2014, at 11:07 PM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems like we're getting to agreement. (Please tell me if I'm wrong about
this)
There are 2 things that I have questions about:
1. isIdentity()
We settled that this should mean that the matrix was never changed to a
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Dirk Schulze dschu...@adobe.com wrote:
On Jun 5, 2014, at 11:07 PM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems like we're getting to agreement. (Please tell me if I'm wrong
about this)
There are 2 things that I have questions about:
1. isIdentity()
On Jun 5, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Dirk Schulze dschu...@adobe.com wrote:
On Jun 5, 2014, at 11:07 PM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems like we're getting to agreement. (Please tell me if I'm wrong
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
There are 2 things that I have questions about:
1. isIdentity()
We settled that this should mean that the matrix was never changed to a non
identity state.
This means that the following code:
var m = new DOMMatrix();
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Dirk Schulze dschu...@adobe.com wrote:
:) would be short enough I guess. But doesn’t sound serious enough.
translateSelf?
Rob
--
Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.rt sS?o Whhei
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org
wrote:
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Dirk Schulze dschu...@adobe.com wrote:
:) would be short enough I guess. But doesn’t sound serious enough.
translateSelf?
Or translateThis of course.
Rob
--
Jtehsauts tshaei
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org
wrote:
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
There are 2 things that I have questions about:
1. isIdentity()
We settled that this should mean that the matrix was never changed to a
non
On 6/06/14 12:05 am, Benoit Jacob wrote:
The situation isn't symmetric: radians are inherently simpler to implement
(thus slightly faster), basically because only in radians is it true that
sin(x) ~= x for small x.
I also doubt that degrees are simpler to understand, and if anything you
might
2014-06-05 18:59 GMT-04:00 Matt Woodrow mwood...@mozilla.com:
On 6/06/14 12:05 am, Benoit Jacob wrote:
The situation isn't symmetric: radians are inherently simpler to implement
(thus slightly faster), basically because only in radians is it true that
sin(x) ~= x for small x.
I also doubt
On 6/5/2014 8:50 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 6/5/14, 11:39 AM, Matthew Gertner wrote:
The problem is that on sites the enforce their own CSP, the resources
may not be loaded. For example, github.com has script-src set to
'self' so it won't load stylesheets via our protocol. Is there any way
On Jun 6, 2014, at 12:28 AM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Dirk Schulze dschu...@adobe.com wrote:
:) would be short enough I guess. But doesn’t sound serious enough.
translateSelf?
Rob
--
Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Dirk Schulze dschu...@adobe.com wrote:
What about
DOMMatrix(1,0,0,1,0,0) or
DOMMatrix(1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1)
Do we check the values and determine if the matrix is identity or not? If
we do, then authors could write
On Jun 6, 2014, at 6:27 AM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Dirk Schulze dschu...@adobe.com wrote:
What about
DOMMatrix(1,0,0,1,0,0) or
DOMMatrix(1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1)
Do we check the values and determine if the
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Dirk Schulze dschu...@adobe.com wrote:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 6:27 AM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org
wrote:
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Dirk Schulze dschu...@adobe.com wrote:
What about
DOMMatrix(1,0,0,1,0,0) or
On Jun 6, 2014, at 6:52 AM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Dirk Schulze dschu...@adobe.com wrote:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 6:27 AM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Dirk Schulze dschu...@adobe.com wrote:
43 matches
Mail list logo
