Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

2016-03-12 Thread Gabor Krizsanits
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: > This will affect approximately 1.2% of our current release population. > Here are the specific breakdowns by OS version: > > Seems like a tough decision for such a short time... There were some great points on

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

2016-03-12 Thread Lawrence Mandel
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Kyle Huey wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Terrence Cole wrote: > > > We need to drop support for OSX 10.8 and Windows Vista yesterday, not > next > > year. We need to cut our losses and ship E10S while we're still

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

2016-03-12 Thread Bobby Holley
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Chris Hofmann wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Benjamin Smedberg > wrote: > > > > > > > On 3/10/2016 5:25 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > >> > >> It's unfair to mention those populations by percentage of the

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

2016-03-12 Thread Kyle Huey
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Terrence Cole wrote: > We need to drop support for OSX 10.8 and Windows Vista yesterday, not next > year. We need to cut our losses and ship E10S while we're still relevant. > We need to be the browser that works best on Android and Windows 10,

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

2016-03-12 Thread Bobby Holley
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:28 PM, 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

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

2016-03-12 Thread Bobby Holley
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:28 PM, 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 >

Re: XULRunner future and ownership

2016-03-12 Thread 段垚
Hi, For those who are still interested in XULRunner, I created a project to maintain the source of xulrunner-stub, and build against Firefox SDK. Here is the link: https://github.com/duanyao/xulrunner-stub Currently only win32 is supported, and Firefox 47a2 is tested. I'd like to ask

Re: XULRunner future and ownership

2016-03-12 Thread 段垚
Hi, For those who are still interested in XULRunner, I created a project to maintain the source of xulrunner-stub, and build against Firefox SDK. Here is the link: https://github.com/duanyao/xulrunner-stub Currently only win32 is supported, and Firefox 47a2 is tested. I'd like to ask

Re: XULRunner future and ownership

2016-03-12 Thread 段垚
Hi, For those who are still interested in XULRunner (especially the stub), I created a project to continue to build xulrunner-stub with Firefox SDK. Here is the link: https://github.com/duanyao/xulrunner-stub . I extracted xulrunner/stub/nsXULStub.cpp, xpcom/build/nsXPCOMPrivate.h ,

Re: Intent to implement: W3C WebAppSec credentialmanagement API

2016-03-12 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 3:48 AM, Martin Thomson wrote: > Now that is a frightening observation. Is this creating a more persistent > (pernicious?) tracking mechanism? It should be identical to password manager integration. > In that case, credentials stored by a site should