On 18/07/13 12:00, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> Since new Makefile.in badness makes people's lives harder (especially
> when it makes the build slower), I would like to propose a more strict
> policy around Makefile.in changes: *if a non-list change in a
> Makefile.in isn't reviewed by a build peer, it d
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> Seeing the filing of bug 895340 pushed me over the edge, because I knew we
> had many other similar bugs on file about unreported JS exceptions.
>
> I ended up filing https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=895548, a
> tracking bug from w
On 7/18/13 9:27 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
My opinion is still that we should rip out most or
all of this mechanism, and replace it with an opt-in mechanism for
methods that actually do exception passthrough.
For what it's worth, that's how the mechanism for calling JS from C++
via WebIDL bi
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 08:54:02PM -0500, Joshua Cranmer ? wrote:
> On 7/18/2013 7:15 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> >On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 3:34 AM, Ehsan Akhgari
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On 2013-07-18 5:48 AM, mscl...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> r-value references 4.3@10.0! Yes
On 7/18/2013 7:15 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 3:34 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2013-07-18 5:48 AM, mscl...@googlemail.com wrote:
r-value references 4.3@10.0! Yes
This is very useful. I believe the JS engine already rolls their own
tricks to implem
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:34:53AM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> On 2013-07-18 5:48 AM, mscl...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > From that table, using the gcc and msvc versions, that gives:
> >
> > gcc msvcclang auto 4.4 10.0*
> > Yes
>
>
On 7/18/2013 7:11 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
Seeing the filing of bug 895340 pushed me over the edge, because I knew we
had many other similar bugs on file about unreported JS exceptions.
I ended up filing https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=895548, a
tracking bug from which I could link a
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 3:34 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> On 2013-07-18 5:48 AM, mscl...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> r-value references 4.3@10.0! Yes
>>
>
> This is very useful. I believe the JS engine already rolls their own
> tricks to implement this semantics.
>
With this we c
On 18/07/2013 20:34, highland...@gmail.com wrote:
As for many other dbms around, comparisons are pretty much hard, just
relying on microbenchmarking doesn't help much. What's best, LMDB,
levelDB, kyotoCabinet, Sqlite4? It's hard to tell just by looking at
these graphs, you'd need measurements don
Seeing the filing of bug 895340 pushed me over the edge, because I knew we
had many other similar bugs on file about unreported JS exceptions.
I ended up filing https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=895548, a
tracking bug from which I could link a bunch of other related bugs that I
found.
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 8:42:42 AM UTC-7, Marco Bonardo wrote:
> On 06/07/2013 11:26, Philip Chee wrote:
>
> > "LMDB is an ultra-fast, ultra-compact key-value data store developed by
>
> > Symas for the OpenLDAP Project. It uses memory-mapped files, so it has
>
> > the read performance of a
On 7/18/2013 12:45 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
A number of people use the bzexport Mercurial extension [1] to upload
patches from the command line so they don't need to muck about with a
browser. It would be awesome to integrate suggested reviewers into
that tool. That would require having an AP
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> Would people be interested in adding this metadata to the tree?
>
Chromium has a per-directory OWNERS file. We could steal their setup.
- Kyle
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mo
On Thu 18 Jul 2013 12:45:19 PM EDT, Gregory Szorc wrote:
Would people be interested in adding this metadata to the tree? We
could put files in the tree (possibly reusing moz.build files) that
identified Bugzilla products/components, modules, reviewers, etc for
directories, files, etc and then too
On 7/18/13 6:33 AM, Byron Jones wrote:
an update was pushed to bugzilla.mozilla.org today which allows us to
provide a list of suggestions for the review flag (bug 804708).
this list is on a per-product or per-component basis, with the product's
suggestions being used in the absence of a compone
On 2013-07-18 5:48 AM, mscl...@googlemail.com wrote:
From that table, using the gcc and msvc versions, that gives:
gcc msvcclang
auto4.4 10.0* Yes
Yes, please!
decltype4.3@10.0@ 2.9
Yes
On 2013-07-18 10:49 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
On 7/18/2013 9:44 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2013-07-18 5:32 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
A good resource is http://wiki.apache.org/stdcxx/C++0xCompilerSupport
Our base versions are 4.4 for gcc, and 10.0 for MSVC. I'm not sure what
our lowest supported
On 2013-07-18 10:49 AM, Joe Drew wrote:
I am 100% in favour of this. My only request is that build peers
implement something similar to Firefox's catch-all reviewer account,
because suggested reviewers won't work for most build changes (the bug
won't be filed in Core::Build Config). If I can ty
I am 100% in favour of this. My only request is that build peers
implement something similar to Firefox's catch-all reviewer account,
because suggested reviewers won't work for most build changes (the bug
won't be filed in Core::Build Config). If I can type :build-peer instead
of :gps, it'll ev
On 7/18/2013 9:44 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2013-07-18 5:32 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
A good resource is http://wiki.apache.org/stdcxx/C++0xCompilerSupport
Our base versions are 4.4 for gcc, and 10.0 for MSVC. I'm not sure what
our lowest supported version of clang is.
As of bug 870173, it's 3.
On 2013-07-18 5:32 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 05:09:22PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 04:17:50PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
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 req
Sounds good to me! FWIW my experience in getting reviews over small-ish
build system changes (I've never made large changes!) has been quite
positive, the peers are usually very responsive and are sometimes even
happy to review patches right away if there is something urgent that
needs to land
Marco Bonardo wrote:
On 18/07/2013 15:33, Byron Jones wrote:
i have created an initial list on an etherpad using the module owners'
wiki page as a source:
https://bmo.etherpad.mozilla.org/suggested-reviewers
please review and update this document where appropriate.
Looks like most of Toolkit
On 18/07/2013 15:33, Byron Jones wrote:
i have created an initial list on an etherpad using the module owners'
wiki page as a source:
https://bmo.etherpad.mozilla.org/suggested-reviewers
please review and update this document where appropriate.
Looks like most of Toolkit is missing. Is there
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Byron Jones wrote:
> please review and update this document where appropriate.
We did this already, it's a bit long in the tooth now, though.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjgkRw6P9EKGcGNSLWhGaXI5eDBQbi1UeFYzajJaYmc#gid=0
Cheers,
Dirkjan
an update was pushed to bugzilla.mozilla.org today which allows us to
provide a list of suggestions for the review flag (bug 804708).
this list is on a per-product or per-component basis, with the product's
suggestions being used in the absence of a component specific list.
i have created an
On 7/18/2013 4:32 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
And it's now done. Thanks to Ted Mielczarek and Ben Hearsum for the
quick reviews, and Aki Sasaki for the buildbot reconfig.
Now we can start discussing what specific features we want to start
using. Bug 895322 has already been filed to use static_assert
On 07/18/2013 02:45 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> On 7/18/2013 2:43 AM, Tim Taubert wrote:
>> The proposal sounds good to me but I guess you wouldn't want to be
>> notified of every small addition/change to Makefiles in test
>> directories? I suppose you're targeting actual changes to dependencies
On 7/18/2013 2:43 AM, Tim Taubert wrote:
The proposal sounds good to me but I guess you wouldn't want to be
notified of every small addition/change to Makefiles in test
directories? I suppose you're targeting actual changes to dependencies
etc, but where do we draw the line?
I thought the propos
On Thursday, 18 July 2013 10:32:35 UTC+1, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 05:09:22PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 04:17:50PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 01:15:31PM -0700, Kyle Huey wrote:
>
> > > > We've dropped support for v
Mobile Application Software – i2space provides mobile application software for
Android and iphone etc. Our apps gives you the best travel mobile application
software to all smart phones. For more details visit our website
http://www.i2space.com/travel-mobile-application.html or contact us at
90
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 05:09:22PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 04:17:50PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > 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. Acc
I2space technologies is a leading travel portal development company that
provides bus booking software, flight booking software, hotel booking software
at very affordable prices. For more details please contact us at 9052266440 /
9704536531 or visit our website http://www.i2space.com/onlinetrave
33 matches
Mail list logo
