Re: Intent to implement: W3C WebAppSec credentialmanagement API

Hey folks! Glad to see that there's interest in this API from Mozilla. :) On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 12 Mar 2016 7:28 PM, "Anne van Kesteren" wrote: > > It should be identical to password manager integration. > > But it is

Re: On nsICancelableRunnable (or how bad decisions come back to haunt you)

On 13/03/2016 09:22, Kyle Huey wrote: > Much of the "disease" you see is simply support for DOM worker threads, > because every runnable that can run on those threads must be > cancelable. Workers do not guarantee one of the invariants that other > XPCOM threads do: that every runnable is

[Firefox Desktop] Issues found: March 7th to March 11th

Hi everyone, Here's the list of new issues found and filed by the Desktop Release QA team last week, *March 07 - March 11* (week 10). Additional details on the team's priorities last week, as well as the plans for the current week are available at:

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 04:28:50PM -0800, Terrence Cole wrote: > We've had this conversation several times in the last few years and I think > I've finally figured out why it has always felt subtly wrong. > > Our share of users on older platforms is disproportionally high compared to > the market

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

I don't think it's entirely unfair -- both sets of numbers have their place. OS X is an important platform, but it's also true that these older OS X releases represent a tiny portion of our overall userbase. For a few more data points... Back in Firefox 16 when we dropped 10.5 -- another

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

Mike Hommey wrote on 11.03.2016 01:52: >> Why can't we just not ship e10s to these users? We have a number of other >> populations we're not shipping to, at least for now. > > This is actually a sensible option. > A not-quite top-notch but up-to-date Firefox is still better than old > versions

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

My understanding is that the reason people stick to 10.6 is because of Rosetta[1] which offers PowerPC compatibility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) Chrome is dropping support for these platforms so it seems like an opportunity to pick up some

Re: Proposal: revisit and implement navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On 9/8/15 3:21 PM, Luke Wagner wrote: On a more technical detail: WebKit and Chromium have both shipped, returning the number of logical processors where WebKit additionally clamps to 2 (on iOS) or 8 (otherwise) [6] which is explicitly allowed by WHATWG text [7]. I would argue for not clamping

Re: Proposal: revisit and implement navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On 9/8/15 3:21 PM, Luke Wagner wrote: On a more technical detail: WebKit and Chromium have both shipped, returning the number of logical processors where WebKit additionally clamps to 2 (on iOS) or 8 (otherwise) [6] which is explicitly allowed by WHATWG text [7]. I would argue for not clamping

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

On 3/12/2016 7:19 PM, Gabor Krizsanits wrote: Seems like a tough decision for such a short time... There were some great points on both sides so far, but I'm missing the math. To evaluate the cost/benefit for a decision like this we should be able to estimate how much engineering time does it

Platform engineering project of the month: Perfherder

Hello from Platform Engineering Operations! Once a month we highlight one of our projects to help the Mozilla community discover a useful tool or an interesting contribution opportunity. This month’s project is Perfherder! What is Perfherder? Perfherder is a generic system for visualizing

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: > > > On 3/12/2016 7:19 PM, Gabor Krizsanits wrote: > >> >> Seems like a tough decision for such a short time... There were some >> great >> points on both sides so far, but I'm missing the math. To evaluate the >>

Re: Proposal: revisit and implement navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On 2016-03-14 3:23 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 9/8/15 3:21 PM, Luke Wagner wrote: >> On a more technical detail: WebKit and Chromium have both shipped, >> returning the number of logical processors where WebKit additionally >> clamps to 2 (on iOS) or 8 (otherwise) [6] which is explicitly allowed

Re: Tier-1 for Linux 64 Debug builds in TaskCluster on March 14 (and more!)

We've got two outstanding bugs ( https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1231320 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1174263), and so are postponing this for at least a week. I will give an update this Friday if we're able to set a date for the switch over. Sorry for the noise!

Re: Proposal: revisit and implement navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2016-03-14 3:23 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > On 9/8/15 3:21 PM, Luke Wagner wrote: > >> On a more technical detail: WebKit and Chromium have both shipped, > >> returning the number of logical processors where

Re: Intent to implement: W3C WebAppSec credentialmanagement API

I don't think that there was any misunderstanding in what it is that is being proposed, just disagreement about cost-benefit. On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Mike West wrote: > Websites use passwords today. While I agree that we can and should be > working on something better,

Re: Proposal: revisit and implement navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On 3/14/16 5:30 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: I brought this up in an in person meeting about this a while ago. It seems pretty hard to justify returning a number more than our per-origin worker limit. To be clear, this will be a clamping different to what WebKit does. OK. So my current plan is

Re: Intent to implement: W3C WebAppSec credentialmanagement API

On 2016-03-10 12:07 PM, Ben Kelly wrote: I believe Matthew Noorenberghe had some concerns about the necessity of the API given requestAutocomplete: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/blink-dev/7ouLjWzcjb0/s7aZHGnlAwAJ

Re: Intent to ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 12:26:21 AM UTC-4, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > * Link to standard: You're funny. People don't bother to put stuff into > actual specs anymore. The closest we have is > https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/NavigatorCores which does at least have > some IDL and some discussion

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Anthony Jones wrote: > My understanding is that the reason people stick to 10.6 is because of > Rosetta[1] which offers PowerPC compatibility. I have a laptop on 10.6. The hardware can theoretically support newer OS X versions, and I've