Re: Intent to implement and ship: "passive" option for AddEventListenerOptions

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 4:43 AM, Eric Shepherd wrote: > What happens if the developer specifies passive yet calls > preventDefault() anyway? That's a no-op per https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-event-preventdefault. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/

Reverting to VS2013 on central and aurora

There is a compiler bug in VS2015 that results in SSE instructions being emitted when they shouldn't be. Since Firefox still needs to remain compatible with ancient hardware that doesn't support SSE, this is causing crashes on Firefox built with VS2015 (see bug 1265615). The good news is glandium

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 8:32:26 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Mandel wrote: > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Xidorn Quan wrote: > > > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Lawrence Mandel wrote: > > > >> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > >> > >> > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:18:17PM

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 8:23 PM, wrote: > On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 8:32:26 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Mandel wrote: > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Xidorn Quan > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Lawrence Mandel

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 8:32:26 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Mandel wrote: > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Xidorn Quan wrote: > > > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Lawrence Mandel > > wrote: > > > >> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Mike Hommey

Re: Intent to implement and ship: "passive" option for AddEventListenerOptions

What happens if the developer specifies passive yet calls preventDefault() anyway? *From:* Kartikaya Gupta *Sent:* Wednesday, May 4, 2016 6:19:20 PM EDT *To:* dev-platform *Cc:* Rick Byers *Subject:* Intent to implement and

Re: libc++ enabled for Android / C++11 standard library update

On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 05:45:35PM -0400, Nathan Froyd wrote: > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:36 PM, wrote: > > Out of interest, what is the situation on Linux? Which C++11 standard > > library will you be using? Will you be shipping your own copy as a shared > > library,

Re: Intent to implement and ship: "passive" option for AddEventListenerOptions

On 2016-05-05 3:21 PM, Justin Dolske wrote: How will a developer know when it would be worthwhile to mark their event listener as passive? Do we perhaps log something to the console? The Chrome devtools have two features to help with this: They have a checkbox for "Show scrolling perf issues"

Re: libc++ enabled for Android / C++11 standard library update

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:36 PM, wrote: > Out of interest, what is the situation on Linux? Which C++11 standard library > will you be using? Will you be shipping your own copy as a shared library, or > will you be using the system one? If I understand correctly, I

Re: libc++ enabled for Android / C++11 standard library update

On Tuesday, 3 May 2016 16:32:55 UTC+1, Nicholas Alexander wrote: > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote: > > This change leaves Mac as our only tier-1 platform without a C++11 > > standard library. Out of interest, what is the situation on Linux? Which C++11 standard library will

Re: Intent to remove:

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > As much as I'd like us to get rid of as soon as we can, I > > oppose doing so without first measuring its actual usage for Firefox > > through telemetry. > > Suppose we measured hitting the isindex special case in

Re: Intent to implement and ship: "passive" option for AddEventListenerOptions

In general developers should probably default to marking their listeners as passive, unless their listeners are actually going to call preventDefault(). We don't have a console log for saying "use a passive listener", no. We can easily detect listeners that are not marked passive and that are

Re: Intent to implement and ship: "passive" option for AddEventListenerOptions

How will a developer know when it would be worthwhile to mark their event listener as passive? Do we perhaps log something to the console? Justin On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Kartikaya Gupta wrote: > Summary: Authors can declare in their addEventListener call that the >

Intent to implement and ship: "passive" option for AddEventListenerOptions

Summary: Authors can declare in their addEventListener call that the listener will not be calling preventDefault() on the event. This unlocks certain performance optimizations. Bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1266066 Link to standard:

Re: Intent to ship: invalid values behave like "metadata", not "subtitles"

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Florin Mezei wrote: > Do you still intend to do some analysis to see whether this will be a > problem in real life? We have somewhat of a history in shipping changes that > break compatibility, and then end up doing dot releases (in

RE: Intent to ship: invalid values behave like "metadata", not "subtitles"

Do you still intend to do some analysis to see whether this will be a problem in real life? We have somewhat of a history in shipping changes that break compatibility, and then end up doing dot releases (in some cases). -Original Message- From: dev-platform

Release Management project of the month: Static Code Analysis - A brief description of what tools we use for Mozilla products

Hello from Release Management! 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 Static Code Analysis - A brief description of what tools we use for Mozilla products. The