Re: Is super-review still a thing?

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018, at 12:41 AM, Mark Côté wrote: > How we might use blocking reviewers in our workflow is still open, but > it could be used for training up reviewers, in which case the trainee > would be a regular reviewer and the module peer/owner would be a > blocking reviewer. It's not

Re: Default Rust optimization level decreased from 2 to 1

On 04/25/2018 08:38 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: At minimum we should make --enable-profiling build with rust-opt. This sounds reasonable, although the quirk is

Re: Default Rust optimization level decreased from 2 to 1

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: > > At minimum we should make --enable-profiling build with rust-opt. > > This sounds reasonable, although the quirk is that we default > --enable-profiling on

Re: Default Rust optimization level decreased from 2 to 1

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: > At minimum we should make --enable-profiling build with rust-opt. This sounds reasonable, although the quirk is that we default --enable-profiling on for nightly[1], so anyone building m-c will have it enabled. We could make the build

Re: Default Rust optimization level decreased from 2 to 1

I think that makes sense as a default, with the ability to explicitly --disable-release if people are profiling something specific, know what they're doing, and want faster builds. On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: > At minimum we should make

Re: Default Rust optimization level decreased from 2 to 1

At minimum we should make --enable-profiling build with rust-opt. -Jeff On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > There's a fair amount of people bitten by this constantly, which see long > style profiling markers and what's really happening is that

Re: Default Rust optimization level decreased from 2 to 1

Could we instead have the profiler UI throw up a warning if the build was not compiled with --enable-release? On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 9:23 AM, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > > > On 4/25/18 6:11 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > >> >> >> On Apr 25, 2018, at 08:35, Emilio Cobos Álvarez

Re: Default Rust optimization level decreased from 2 to 1

On 4/25/18 6:11 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: On Apr 25, 2018, at 08:35, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: There's a fair amount of people bitten by this constantly, which see long style profiling markers and what's really happening is that they're profiling a local opt build,

Re: Default Rust optimization level decreased from 2 to 1

> On Apr 25, 2018, at 08:35, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > > There's a fair amount of people bitten by this constantly, which see long > style profiling markers and what's really happening is that they're profiling > a local opt build, and thus the Rust code in style has

Re: Default Rust optimization level decreased from 2 to 1

There's a fair amount of people bitten by this constantly, which see long style profiling markers and what's really happening is that they're profiling a local opt build, and thus the Rust code in style has barely any optimization and is slow. I know that shouldn't be a thing, and that people

Re: Intent to ship: PerformanceServerTiming

On 4/25/18 8:12 AM, James Graham wrote: If there is general agreement about restricting the feature to secure contexts There is not. Given the discussion in the spec issue, I fully expect Chrome to ship it in all contexts. -Boris ___ dev-platform

Re: Is super-review still a thing?

A few comments on Phabricator and Lando: Phabricator has two types of review requests: "reviewer" and "blocking reviewer". These are only really differentiated if there is more than one reviewer on a revision. In that case, if there is a blocking reviewer, the revision is only marked

Re: Intent to ship: PerformanceServerTiming

On 24/04/2018 22:36, Valentin Gosu wrote: On 24 April 2018 at 22:44, James Graham This affects web-compat, since per our "restrict new features to secure origins policy" the