Re: Using C++0x auto
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:50:55PM -0700, Justin Lebar wrote: We can't require any c++11 feature until we drop support for gcc 4.4. [...] there are problems in the gcc 4.4 system headers that make using c++11 mode impossible (except on b2g/android). Is there any reason to support gcc 4.4 outside of B2G/Android? That's what I'm saying. I don't see a reason to after 24. It's better to still support gcc 4.4 for 24, though. Mike ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Using C++0x auto
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 01:15:31PM -0700, Kyle Huey wrote: We've dropped support for versions of MSVC prior to 2010, and we're requiring at least GCC 4.4. According to [0] that means we should be able to use *auto*. Anybody know any reasons why we can't start using it? Filed bug 894242. (double 42!) Mike ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
i2space introduces B2B Travel Portal with API Integration
I2space technologies is leading online travel portal that sells travel related products and services to potential clients. We provide b2b travel portal, travel portal api, and travel portal white label in India at very affordable rates. For more details please contact us at 9052266440 / 9704536531 or visit our website http://www.i2space.com/onlinetravelportal.html Contact Person: Bhargava Mobile no. 9052266440 ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Double-click test
How do I write a test for a double-click event, or does anyone know an existing test that I can cargo-cult from? -- Warning: May contain traces of nuts. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Shutting off leak tests?
Steven, anyone else that can take a look at this mac bug? Not that I'm aware of. And are we sure this *is* a Mac bug? I've never seen anything like it in any other context, so I think this is most likely to be a tests bug. So the best person to look at it is probably someone who knows a lot about our tests infrastructure and our tests. The Unknown event type 0xff90 error is displayed from trace-malloc code: https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/annotate/e5d74eebd0e2/tools/trace-malloc/tmreader.c#l290 So is the no callsite for 'F' (70)! error: https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/annotate/e5d74eebd0e2/tools/trace-malloc/tmreader.c#l710 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/annotate/e5d74eebd0e2/tools/trace-malloc/tmreader.c#l765 On 7/15/13 6:08 PM, Doug Turner wrote: Makes me sad that the knee jerk reaction is to turn leak testing off before anyone actually does any engineering. Steven, anyone else that can take a look at this mac bug? Steven Michaud mailto:smich...@pobox.com July 15, 2013 2:15 PM I'd say go ahead and shut them off. I'm not going to have time to investigate this for the foreseeable future. I'm already dealing with one very difficult (and possibly intractable) tests bug (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=884471), and that's more than enough at one time :-( Doug Turner mailto:doug.tur...@gmail.com July 15, 2013 2:07 PM Has a developer investigated? Steven, do you know anything about this? doug ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Running talos through mozharness
Hi, We have recently been working hard to separate the buildbot logic that runs our talos jobs on tbpl to its own separate script (using mozharness). [1][2] This has the advantage of permitting anyone (specially the a-team) to adjust how our harnesses run talos inside of our infrastructure without having to set up buildbot (which is what currently runs our talos jobs). This also permits anyone to run the jobs locally in the same manner as Releng's infrastructure. This also allows for further development and flexibility on how we configure the jobs we run. Initially, we will enable it on the try server today to see production-like load. So far, it's been looking great on Cedar. [3] The only gotcha is that there will be a small performance hit for the ts tests that we are willing to take. [4] There's one thing to do on your part if you want to not have failing *talos* jobs on the try server, make sure that the changeset 3d1c2ca7efe8 is in your local checkout [5][6]. If you have updated your repo from m-i by Friday 12th at 10:19AM PDT you should be good to go. Once we get a couple of days worth of load on the try server and see nothing new we will go ahead and enable it for every m-c based repository. If you have any questions/concerns please write a comment on bug 713055. Best regards, Jason Armen Release Engineering [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=713055 [2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozharness_FAQ [3] https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Cedarjobname=talos [4] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=802801#c10 [5] http://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/3d1c2ca7efe8 [6] http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/3d1c2ca7efe8 ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Generic data update service?
On 15/07/13 14:57, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: Or it means that we need to be willing to issue dot-releases to update these items. We're pretty nimble with the desktop release cycle already. We should definitely measure this tradeoff before doing a bunch of engineering on this. As I understand it, the major factor here is that we are not nearly as nimble for FxOS updates, and so this is more of an issue, correct? Certainly the original motivation for this discussion was a desire to be able to update the UA override list on Firefox OS after shipping, and I assume there was an implied without shipping a full update to the device in there somewhere. Gerv ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Double-click test
On 2013-07-16 6:52 AM, Neil wrote:
How do I write a test for a double-click event, or does anyone know an
existing test that I can cargo-cult from?
synthesizeMouse(element, x, y, {clickCount: 2}, window);
should do it.
Cheers,
Ehsan
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Do you consider to port mp3 support on Windows XP
I'm working on a html 5 interactive player that 100% compatible with Chrome from XP to Window 8. I Saw that the support of mp3 and mp4 has been introduced in firefox on v21 for win 7 and v22 for Vista. Do you consider to port these formats on Windows XP? ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Do you consider to port mp3 support on Windows XP
On 13-07-16 11:15 AM, Ludovic Chenneberg wrote: I'm working on a html 5 interactive player that 100% compatible with Chrome from XP to Window 8. I Saw that the support of mp3 and mp4 has been introduced in firefox on v21 for win 7 and v22 for Vista. Porting mp3 playback support to WinXP is in progress. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=861693 -r ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Shutting off leak tests?
It's not exactly a knee jerk reaction. We discussed this quite a while ago as I mentioned earlier and there were more arguments in favor of turning these off. It's just that the work was never done. And in the mean time we have got much more useful test suites, such as AWSY which actually help us catch memory usage regressions. Cheers, -- Ehsan http://ehsanakhgari.org/ On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Doug Turner doug.tur...@gmail.com wrote: Makes me sad that the knee jerk reaction is to turn leak testing off before anyone actually does any engineering. Steven, anyone else that can take a look at this mac bug? Steven Michaud mailto:smich...@pobox.com July 15, 2013 2:15 PM I'd say go ahead and shut them off. I'm not going to have time to investigate this for the foreseeable future. I'm already dealing with one very difficult (and possibly intractable) tests bug (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/**show_bug.cgi?id=884471https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=884471), and that's more than enough at one time :-( Doug Turner mailto:doug.tur...@gmail.com July 15, 2013 2:07 PM Has a developer investigated? Steven, do you know anything about this? doug __**_ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/dev-platformhttps://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: running tests in HiDPI mode on the build machines
On 11.07.2013, at 09:11, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au wrote: This proposal is just to affect how content is rendered, by setting that pref. If it's a XUL UI it should render at the higher resolution. It wouldn't cause native UI to be rendered differently. I don't really know how we'd achieve that, on any platform, without actual HiDPI hardware. (Maybe those dongles that fake a monitor can be used on the Mac Minis?) On OS X, Quartz Debug should help: https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/ipad/#documentation/GraphicsAnimation/Conceptual/HighResolutionOSX/Testing/Testing.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40012302-CH6-SW1 Georg ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Three RDFa-related W3C Proposed (Edited) Recommendations
The W3C has released three RDFA-related documents, one proposed recommendation: HTML+RDFa 1.1: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-html-rdfa-20130625/ and two proposed edited recommendations (which contain only editorial changes): RDFa 1.1 Core: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PER-rdfa-core-20130625/ XHTML+RDFa 1.1 http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PER-xhtml-rdfa-20130625/ There's a call for review to W3C member companies (of which Mozilla is one) open until Tuesday, July 23 (one week from today). If there are comments you think Mozilla should send as part of the review, or if you think Mozilla should voice support or opposition to the specification, 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.) There was one formal objection earlier in the process, whose history is documented in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2013Jan/0057.html -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
