Re: XUL Runner, and the future.

On 08/15/12 12:41, Ben Hearsum wrote: On 08/15/12 02:57 PM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: XULRunner is currently an unsupported piece of software, we don't run tests for it, and we *barely* ensure it still builds. I don't think this is true. It's not tier1, but we ship it with every release and

Re: XUL Runner, and the future.

On 08/16/12 03:51, Neil wrote: Dave Townsend wrote: On 08/15/12 12:41, Ben Hearsum wrote: On 08/15/12 02:57 PM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: XULRunner is currently an unsupported piece of software, we don't run tests for it, and we *barely* ensure it still builds. I don't think

Re: Build custom app. against Gecko without Xulrunner

On 08/28/12 07:18, Emmanuel Engelhart wrote: Le 25/08/2012 23:31, Mark Finkle a écrit : On 08/24/2012 07:02 AM, Emmanuel Engelhart wrote: do we have somewhere a documentation/tutorial about how to build a custom app. against Mozilla source code? As xulrunner was removed from GNU/Linux

Re: What is the best way to keep track of all the window objects in a content window?

On 09/28/12 11:08, Paul Rouget wrote: In the Developer Tools, we often need to get a list of all the windows present in a page. (main window, iframes, iframes in iframes, …). We also need to be notified when a new window is created (createElement(iframe)). The naive way to do it: - recursively

Re: Changes to JS components/JSMs

On 10/30/12 13:18, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Joshua Cranmer pidgeo...@verizon.net wrote: Now, maybe Fennec might want to flip this pref as well (it would make a lot of sense IMHO) in which case we might want to re-evaluate how much this would affect

Re: Changes to JS components/JSMs

On 10/30/12 12:08, Alex Keybl wrote: We have explored various techniques to lower the overhead of a compartment, but unfortunately those fixes that would help at all are either too risky for or cannot be completed in time for Gecko 18. We have decided instead to consolidate all JSMs and JS

Re: Changes to JS components/JSMs

On 10/30/12 14:20, Kartikaya Gupta wrote: On 12-10-30 16:31 , Dave Townsend wrote: In case people missed this part specifically, I just want to point out that the change in bug 798491 are targeted for FF18 (Aurora). See comment 75 for philikon's early risk evaluation. From our read of the bug

Re: Changes to JS components/JSMs

On 10/30/12 14:29, Dave Townsend wrote: On 10/30/12 14:20, Kartikaya Gupta wrote: On 12-10-30 16:31 , Dave Townsend wrote: In case people missed this part specifically, I just want to point out that the change in bug 798491 are targeted for FF18 (Aurora). See comment 75 for philikon's early

Re: XULRunner on OS X, Why is not supported?

On 11/06/12 13:58, richardson.balca...@gmail.com wrote: At first I tried for a couple of days to try to get xulrunner 16.0.2 to work on my OSX 10.6, until I understoo it wasn't working at all running the 'xulrunner -v' will return an 'error' string where the version should come out. Looking

Re: XULRunner on OS X, Why is not supported?

On 11/08/12 12:46, richardson.balca...@gmail.com wrote: I was just reading the effort of installing open web apps locally, I'm assuming the strategy shift that I'm talking about is that Mozilla is betting on Firefox as their application framework, that would make sense not to support

Re: Super-review, what shall we do with you?

On 11/23/12 11:29, Dave Townsend wrote: On 11/06/12 10:09, Dave Townsend wrote: We've had a policy requiring super-review for certain kinds of patches for a long time. It's changed a couple of times but the current policy (http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/reviewers.html) primarily requires super

Re: sr flag question

On 12/12/12 19:06, Justin Lebar wrote: Recently I read Dave Townsend's thread about Super-review, what shall we do with you? and realized there wasn't any conclusion to that. As a relative new dev, I think it is vital to have a clear distinction as to when a sr is required. I think the

Re: Upcoming separation between resource://app and resource://gre

On 2/8/2013 7:11 AM, Matt Brubeck wrote: On 2/7/2013 6:12 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: - But really, what does it change for developers? Almost nothing they shouldn't be doing already. The main difference is that resource://app/ and resource://gre/ urls are not going to point to the same location

Re: TBPL job visibility policy - now documented

This is awesome, thanks for writing this up, it's made me spot one more place where Jetpack is failing. Can we get some more definition around Runs on all trees that merge into mozilla-central? In particular I want to make that true for Jetpack but I don't know what all those trees are.

Re: TBPL job visibility policy - now documented

On 3/26/2013 9:17 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: On 3/26/2013 12:07 PM, Dave Townsend wrote: This is awesome, thanks for writing this up, it's made me spot one more place where Jetpack is failing. Can we get some more definition around Runs on all trees that merge into mozilla-central

Re: Storage in Gecko

On 4/30/2013 8:37 AM, Joshua Cranmer  wrote: On 4/30/2013 12:33 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: On 2013-04-29 1:51 PM, Taras Glek wrote: Writes of data = ~64K should just be implemented as atomic whole-file read/write operations. Those are almost always single blocks on disk. Writing a whole file

Re: smartmake-like functionality has landed in mach

On 5/2/2013 3:45 PM, Nick Alexander wrote: On 13-05-02 3:09 PM, Josh Matthews wrote: According to http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/build/dumbmake-dependencies#8, it is equivalent to the following: ./mach build -X chrome xpcom toolkit/library That's correct. Or, if you're not a

Re: smartmake-like functionality has landed in mach

On 5/2/2013 11:55 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: On 2013-05-02 7:23 PM, Dave Townsend wrote: On 5/2/2013 3:45 PM, Nick Alexander wrote: On 13-05-02 3:09 PM, Josh Matthews wrote: According to http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/build/dumbmake-dependencies#8, it is equivalent

Re: smartmake-like functionality has landed in mach

On 5/3/2013 12:21 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 02:55:09AM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: Does it also build browser/app on OSX after every build? Since that is pretty much required all the time and often missed. Why is that always required? I never build browser/app and have

Re: [RFC] Modules for workers

On 5/18/2013 3:09 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote: Hi everyone, As part of the ongoing effort to make (Chrome) Workers useful for platform refactorings, we have been working on a lightweight module loader for workers (bug 872421). This loader implements a minimal version of

Re: [RFC] Modules for workers

On 5/28/2013 5:08 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote: On 5/27/13 7:34 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: The alternative is to use C++ workers. This doesn't work for addons obviously, but those aren't yet a concern for B2G. Well, my main concern is front-end- and add-on-accessible code. Normally, it

Re: Pink pixel of death (reftest failures due to bad RAM)

On 5/30/2013 11:51 AM, Armen Zambrano G. wrote: Hi all, We have found that sometimes we fail our reftest tests due to a couple of pixels getting store in bad sectors on the RAM of our machines. We have also seen garbage collection crashes due to it. We have also recently discovered that memtest

Re: Code coverage take 2, and other code hygiene tools

On 6/24/2013 6:50 PM, Clint Talbert wrote: Decoder and Jcranmer got code coverage working on Try[1]. They'd like to expand this into something that runs automatically, generating results over time so that we can actually know what our code coverage status is with our major run-on-checkin test

Re: Fix or disable windows desktop b2g builds

On 6/5/2013 3:48 PM, Chris AtLee wrote: Windows desktop b2g builds have been pretty broken for several weeks now, since around May 24 [1]. At this week's engineering and b2g meetings we discussed shutting these off if nobody has a strong reason to keep them around. If you are currently

Re: Reminder: in-tree mozconfigs are not for developers

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote: Hi, As it seems there is a trend towards using in-tree mozconfigs for local developer builds, I think a reminder is in order: In-tree mozconfigs are for buildbot consumption. For Firefox desktop builds, a

Webapp developer tools status and next steps

Hi everyone. I wanted to give you all a quick overview of where we are with our plans to deliver developer tools targeted at web app developers for Firefox OS and the web app runtimes on android and desktop. Developer tools support in Firefox OS We've been hard at work adding developer tools

Re: Keeping automatically-updated local mirrors of repositories?

I would expect that the total server load on hg.mozilla.org is high enough that whatever you do as a single person isn't going to be even a blip on the radar so I'd expect just a hg pull with a reasonable frequency would be just fine. If you want to be sure you're up to date make a simple script

Re: Poll: What do you need in MXR/DXR?

This is looking awesome and I'm going to attempt to switch my mxr quick searches over to it. A couple of immediate things that you might want to think about: Right now I think mxr updates from mozilla-central faster than daily. I've used that on a number of occasions to figure out what has broken

Re: Poll: What do you need in MXR/DXR?

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 10/2/13 3:33 PM, Erik Rose wrote: What keeps you off DXR? (What are the MXR things you use constantly? Or the things which are seldom-used but vital?) Things that drive me nuts about mxr when I've tried to use it: *

Re: Extensibility of JavaScript modules

Frankly I wish the JSM import code didn't do what it does now, returning the entire global scope of the module to allow anyone outside to change it. Modules should be well contained and immutable, one piece of code shouldn't be able to make changes that breaks other code. If we need to allow

Coding style for functions called by Task.jsm tasks

As Task.jsm is used more throughout our code it would be good to try to use similar sorts of patterns to avoid confusion. One difference I've spotted is in how to write asynchronous functions that are called by tasks. One way is to simply write the function as a generator, the other is to write

Re: Coding style for functions called by Task.jsm tasks

a little more verbose with two additional lines of code and some extra indentation but it is also usable standalone whereas the first example isn't, you need to know how to call it as a generator. On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Dave Townsend dtowns...@mozilla.comwrote: As Task.jsm is used more

Re: Coding style for functions called by Task.jsm tasks

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Ted Mielczarek t...@mielczarek.org wrote: On 10/8/2013 3:14 PM, Dave Townsend wrote: I was asked to clarify what I meant by my two examples so here are some snippets of code that illustrate it. This is forcibly async but you get the point I hope. If you

Re: Coding style for functions called by Task.jsm tasks

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Gregory Szorc g...@mozilla.com wrote: On 10/8/13 9:14 PM, Dave Townsend wrote: I was asked to clarify what I meant by my two examples so here are some snippets of code that illustrate it. This is forcibly async but you get the point I hope. If you want

Re: Removal of native notification systems on desktop platforms

That's a pretty long bug to ask people to read over but... The original comment about posting to dev-platform seems to be simply asking that a thread be made to warn people that this change is coming, not for any discussion as such. It should have happened at the time but it's a bit late for it

Re: Removal of native notification systems on desktop platforms

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Marco mar.castelluc...@studenti.unina.itwrote: The bug has regressed a lot of things. To me it looks like the decision to land it was a bit rushed. For example, I think we shouldn't have removed the Mac notification system, if it supported the necessary

Re: Intent to replace Promise.jsm and promise.js with DOM Promises

There are add-ons using the existing promises implementations. Is there any reason not to make those wrappers around the DOM promises to avoid potential bustage? At least the add-on SDK promises library provides functionality beyond that that appears to be in the DOM promises (custom prototypes

Re: Target Milestone field in bugzilla

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Chris Peterson cpeter...@mozilla.comwrote: On 1/9/14, 7:17 AM, Kartikaya Gupta wrote: I think the Target Milestone field is poorly named, at least with respect to what we use it for. In practice this field is set to the version of m-c on which the patches

Re: Terminating xulrunner?

I sadly agree. While I still think there is value in XULRunner existing as a standalone runtime I don't think it is worth taking any time away from other work and it would be better to stand up and declare it dead instead of pretending like it is going to be around long-term. On Sun, Jan 12,

Re: Toolkit sub-module Preferred Reviewers who are not Toolkit Peers

Everyone who is a preferred reviewer should be a peer, if they aren't it's likely because I forgot to update the appropriate lists. Who do you see who is absent from the peer list? On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Matthew N. ma...@mozilla.com wrote: Hello, What does it mean to be a

Re: Toolkit sub-module Preferred Reviewers who are not Toolkit Peers

PM, Dave Townsend wrote: Everyone who is a preferred reviewer should be a peer, if they aren't it's likely because I forgot to update the appropriate lists. Who do you see who is absent from the peer list? On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Matthew N. ma...@mozilla.com wrote

Re: Toolkit sub-module Preferred Reviewers who are not Toolkit Peers

I'm working on a plan, watch this space On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: Dave Townsend schrieb: Ideally you would have talked to the Toolkit module owner (i.e. me) before adding a new chunk of code to it but Toolkit has basically become the wild-west

Re: Mozilla Location Services - Heads up

Firefox for android only uploads information when a webpage does a location request, MozStumbler on the other hand allows you to permanents scan for data to send so it will send a lot more information On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au wrote: Doug Turner wrote:

Re: Proposing changes to how mach does environment detection

I assume the second section is actually getcwd() not in objdir but is in srcdir? I'm crazy enough to want to be able to call mach when getcwd() isn't either the objdir or srcdir. I have many of both and use various environment flags to say which is active currently. Perhaps it's implicit, but I

Re: Proposing changes to how mach does environment detection

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Gregory Szorc g...@mozilla.com wrote: On 2/6/14, 9:23 AM, Dave Townsend wrote: I assume the second section is actually getcwd() not in objdir but is in srcdir? Yes. I'm crazy enough to want to be able to call mach when getcwd() isn't either the objdir

Re: Proposing changes to how mach does environment detection

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Gregory Szorc g...@mozilla.com wrote: On 2/6/14, 11:21 AM, Dave Townsend wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Gregory Szorc g...@mozilla.com mailto:g...@mozilla.com wrote: On 2/6/14, 9:23 AM, Dave Townsend wrote: I assume the second section

Re: Column numbers appended to URLs recently

I'm guessing this is a result of https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=762556 On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 3/3/14 1:54 PM, Jan Honza Odvarko wrote: An example of the stack trace: http://example.com/path/file.html:102 Which exact API is

Re: Switching Jetpack to use the runtests.py automation

: Gregory Szorc wrote on 07/15/2014 09:04 PM: On 7/15/14, 11:49 AM, Dave Townsend wrote: Since forever Jetpack tests in the Firefox trees have been run using our custom python CFX tool which is based on a fork of an ancient version of mozrunner. This causes us a number of problems. Keeping

Re: Switching Jetpack to use the runtests.py automation

On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Gregory Szorc g...@mozilla.com wrote: On 8/4/14, 10:39 AM, Dave Townsend wrote: I've done a little investigation into marionette and I've found a few issues with it: Firstly it doesn't look like running marionette directly or through mach allows developers

Re: Exporting user configurations

I seem to remember that the SUMO folk had an add-on that would install restartlessly and gather system info to pass along to them. I don't remember the specifics though. On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Nicholas Nethercote n.netherc...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I wrote a blog post about a bug

Re: Upcoming changes to Mac package layout, signing

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Robert Strong rstr...@mozilla.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Philipp Kewisch mozi...@kewis.ch To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:49:35 PM Subject: Re: Upcoming changes to Mac package layout, signing

Re: Why in .manifest file, the resource directive doesn't support for '-' in alias name.

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Yonggang Luo luoyongg...@gmail.com wrote: For example. The following code doesn't work resource testing-commn testing-common/ Do you have any details on what problems or error messages you see with that. As far as I can see a hyphen should be just fine, in

Re: e10s is now enabled by default for Nightly!

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Gijs Kruitbosch gijskruitbo...@gmail.com wrote: Where can we read about how this decision was made? On my profiles with Force RTL, e10s perma-crashes ( https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ show_bug.cgi?id=1072980 ), and in most other cases, I only ever see spinners

Re: Will there be a followup on e10s inputs?

We have been periodically building summaries of this feedback and checking that there are bugs on file where appropriate. I don't know when we last did this but maybe Chris can help. On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 3:43 AM, jes...@staunhansen.dk wrote: Hi, I see that an awful lot of people leave

Re: changing the default platform and operating-system on bugzilla.mozilla.org to all / all

Are the platform fields actually useful? Most bugs apply to all platforms and in the cases that don't it is normally clear from the bug conversation that it is platform specific. It seems like we rarely go an update the platform fields to match the actual state of the bug. And then there is the

Re: State synchronization - use cases?

The blocklist service also downloads about once a day On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Richard Barnes rbar...@mozilla.com wrote: If anyone has use cases in addition to the above, please let me know. Public suffix?

Re: Linux builds now default to building with Gtk+3

Can we update the bootstrap script to install the necessary development files? On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote: Hi, If you've followed the recent discussion in the GTK3 linux builds thread, this will come with no surprise, but if not: - Next Linux

Re: Firefox Architects

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Dave Camp dc...@mozilla.com wrote: Thanks to the Firefox Architects for stepping up. Sounds great! From your addressing, I assume most of the communication from/to this group should

Re: Where can i download firefox-sdk

As of Firefox 41 we no longer support loading binary components from add-ons. On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 5:44 AM, wrote: > Hi all. > > I am developing firefox addon with a binary component, and until recently > i was using xulrunner-sdk for linking with required libs. As

Re: Where can i download firefox-sdk

Then I'm not sure why you need the gecko sdk to build it. On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, <ales.rozman...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 4:07:22 PM UTC+1, Dave Townsend wrote: > > As of Firefox 41 we no longer support loading binary components f

ESLint tracking and target rules for desktop

So we can keep track of all of the work going on with eslinting the world I've filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1229856. Please add any bugs that you're working on there and look there if you're wanting to work on something. I've also just landed the default eslint rules for

Re: When the beta version of firefox with e10s would be released?

The developer edition already ships with e10s so you can test against that. On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Yonggang Luo wrote: > I am looking for it to developing mutli-process based firefox addons/apps > ___ > dev-platform

Re: Heads-up: SHA1 deprecation (for newly issued certs) causes trouble with local ssl-proxy mitm spyware

aus5 (the server the app updater checks) is still pinned: https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/security/manager/ssl/StaticHPKPins.h#739 On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Robert Strong wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Jesper Kristensen < >

ESLint is now available in the entire tree

Thanks to some speedy work by Mark Banner and help from Mike Conley, Felipe Gomes and Gijs Kruitbosch we've now landed the changes to make it possible to run "mach eslint" on any directory in the tree. The default rules for the tree are almost non-existent so this is mostly checking for syntax

Re: Does the sdk/page-worker are loading pages off-main thread? and running code in another thread?

Current release versions will load page-workers in the main process, nightly has been updated to load in a child process if e10s is enabled. On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:59 PM, 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo) wrote: > pageWorker = require("sdk/page-worker").Page({ contentScript: >

Re: In the new e10s multiprocess model, is that possible to calling XPCOM in the client process?

XPCOM is available in the child process but whether the specific component you want works there or not is a different question. Some components have proxies in the child process to make them work, some work just fine and some don't work at all. Which component do you care about? On Wed, Nov 25,

Re: XULRunner future and ownership

I'm not sure why that page links to the nightly builds but the release versions are here: http://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/ Note that Firefox 45 hasn't been released yet so the latest SDK is for one of the beta versions. On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:21 AM, Devan Shah

Re: XULRunner future and ownership

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Devan Shah <devan.sha...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 10:43:44 AM UTC-5, Dave Townsend wrote: >> I'm not sure why that page links to the nightly builds but the release >> versions are here: http://archive.mozilla.org

Re: Unsafe CPOWs are about to be outlawed in browser code

I don't think that this is meant to impact add-on code at all, unless it is calling browser code and making it do something unsafe, in which case it would be up to the add-on developer to fix that. It's probably worth filing a bug to track what is going on there though. On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at

Re: Just Autoland It

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Andrew Halberstadt < > ahalberst...@mozilla.com> wrote: > >> On 28/01/16 06:31 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Gregory Szorc >>> wrote:

Re: [Responses Needed by Jan 27] Identifying Owners of Bugzilla Components in Firefox, Toolkit, and Core

Is there any reason not to make the link publicly accessible? Then no-one needs to request access. On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Emma Humphries wrote: > I understand, and if non-mozilla.com community members need access, > email me or request access from inside the sheet. >

Re: Just Autoland It

Should we just add a "and land it" checkbox to the review page, maybe disabled if there are still open issues? On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > If you have level 3 source code access (can push to central, inbound, > fx-team) and have pushed to MozReview

Re: Splitting inner and outer windows

Does this mean that window objects will no longer implement nsIDOMWindow (at least as far as JS is concerned)? Querying for nsIDOMWindow is something add-ons do a lot and I'd expect to see a lot of add-ons break if we changed that. On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Kyle Huey

Re: nsIDOMWindow is deprecated now is there an alternative?

Yeah, Firefox 41 and later don't support binary XPCOM components in extensions. ctypes is still supported and so are binary plugins. On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Kyle Huey wrote: > Ok. I thought we killed binary components in extensions ... > > There will be a lot of

Switching to ESLint 2

I've just landed patches on fx-team which switch the in-tree configuration and our automatic linting checks to use ESLint 2. If you're running linting checks locally you will need to update. As usual "mach eslint --setup" will install the things you need.

Re: Two Factor Authentication and Github

Github supports using SMS as the 2nd factor in many countries (Belgium included) so a smartphone is not always required. https://help.github.com/articles/countries-where-sms-authentication-is-supported/ On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Jared Hirsch <6...@mozilla.com> wrote: > A smartphone isn't

Re: One Firefox repository to rule them all

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > I'm pleased to announce the immediate availability of some *experimental* > read-only Mercurial repositories containing the combined, useful history of > the various Firefox repositories, all in chronological order and

Re: Rust 1.10 (to be) required to build Firefox with --enable-rust

Does MozillaBuild include the appropriate version of rust? On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote: > TL; DR: As the subject says, although the patch is not yet on > mozilla-central. You may want to pre-emptively update your Rust > before the build system

Deprecating XUL in new UI

One of the things I've been investigating since moving back to the desktop team is how we can remove XUL from the application as much as possible. The benefits for doing this are varied, some obvious examples: * XUL is a proprietary standard and we barely maintain it. * Shallower learning curve

Re: Deprecating XUL in new UI

or a new Web Component binding, to > follow on from MattN's thinking. > > -- Mike > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Dave Townsend <dtowns...@mozilla.com> > wrote: > >> One of the things I've been investigating since moving back to the >> desktop team is

Re: Deprecating XUL in new UI

ld be a good candidate. > > Matthew > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Dave Townsend <dtowns...@mozilla.com> > wrote: > >> One of the things I've been investigating since moving back to the >> desktop team is how we can remove XUL from the application as much as

Re: Deprecating XUL in new UI

es inside one XUL > document (happens when doing incremental migration), it can be challenging > to make flex-like layouts work correctly. The standard flex layout and the > XUL flex (-moz-box) interact in ways that are hard to understand. > > Jarda > > > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017

Re: Help ridding tests of unsafe CPOWs

I am working on a patch that takes care of most of the warnings in toolkit/mozapps/extensions/test/xpinstall in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1311459 On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Blake Kaplan wrote: > Hello everybody, > > I've been seeing a pattern of

Re: Better download security through browsers

I remember that Gerv was interested in a similar idea many years ago, you might want to see if he went anywhere with it. https://blog.gerv.net/2005/03/link_fingerprin_1/ On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > I recently reinstalled Windows 10 on one of my

Re: Switching to async/await from Task.jsm/yield

It looks like the main concern raised about switching over to async/await where possible is bug 1242505. We're going to try to get some resources for fixing that bug and it probably blocks doing a mass rewrite of existing code but I don't think it blocks people starting to use async/await right

Re: intent to remove: standalone about:addons UI and tests

I agree that this has outlived its usefulness and we should remove it and cleanup the code where we can. On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Robert Helmer wrote: > Currently we support running the about:addons UI in both a standalone > window, and also in a browser tab. > >

Re: Switching to async/await from Task.jsm/yield

cause problems as we attempt to automatically rewrite older code and tests make bad assumptions. On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Dave Townsend <dtowns...@mozilla.com> wrote: > For a long time now we've been writing JS code that waits for promises > using Task.jsm and generator functio

Switching to async/await from Task.jsm/yield

For a long time now we've been writing JS code that waits for promises using Task.jsm and generator functions. Recently though the JS team added support for the JS standard way of doing this, async/await: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Statements/async_function

Re: Switching to async/await from Task.jsm/yield

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Joshua Cranmer  <pidgeo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/16/2017 5:29 PM, Dave Townsend wrote: > >> For a long time now we've been writing JS code that waits for promises >> using Task.jsm and generator functions. Recently though the JS team add

Re: Is there a way to improve partial compilation times?

70 minutes is about what a clobber build takes on my Surface Book. And yes I agree, it is way too much! On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 11:29:00AM -0800, zbranie...@mozilla.com wrote: > > So, > > > > I'm on Dell XPS 13 (9350), and

Re: Switching to per-channel profiles

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Mike Hommey <m...@glandium.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 03:43:54PM -0700, Dave Townsend wrote: > > TL;DR: We should make each Firefox channel use its own profile data > > allowing you to run multiple channels at the same time. >

Re: Switching to per-channel profiles

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Aki Sasaki wrote: > I'm a Nightly only user who periodically uses Release, and I'm not > thrilled with the idea of my profile going away. Nightly users are probably > better suited to dealing with this (using sync, etc) than the Beta >

Re: Switching to per-channel profiles

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Richard Newman wrote: > How we populate the new profile we create for Nightly and Beta channels is >> an open question. We could simply clone the existing Release profile or use >> Firefox Refresh to copy across the basic data. In either case

Switching to per-channel profiles

TL;DR: We should make each Firefox channel use its own profile data allowing you to run multiple channels at the same time. Running multiple channels of Firefox is currently harder than it needs to be. You can't start more than one channel at a time and either you use the same profile data for

Browser Architecture Newsletter 3

es. We’re getting ready to run through a design review for our XBL replacement plans. The review will be chaired by Dave Townsend and include a panel of experts on both Gecko and Firefox. The review process itself is a work in progress, and our XBL Removal review is a trial run to help us refine it. L

Re: We need better canaries for JS code

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 4:51 AM Mark Banner wrote: > I remember that we had bugs of this kind lurking for years in our > codebase, in code that was triggered daily and that everybody believed > to be tested. > > I'd like to think that there is a better way to handle these

Re: We need better canaries for JS code

allowing > modules to opt-in to using them, perhaps just as an experiment. Presumably > most existing modules wouldn't, but new ones being written might. > > Dan > 2017-10-18 9:06 GMT-07:00 Dave Townsend <dtowns...@mozilla.com>: > >> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 4:51 AM

Browser Architecture Newsletter 5

Welcome to the exciting fifth instalment in our series of Browser Architecture Newsletters! Storage and Sync We are pleased to report that the Sync and Storage roadmap proposal successfully passed review by dcamp. Thanks to the 20+ people from around the organization who helped us build

Re: Overriding JS to allow for opening in a new tab?

We have some precedent for overriding a site. Popup blocking and redirecting new windows to tabs for example. But I'm not sure how we could technically do this here. If the site is doing some JS work (possibly including async stuff) ultimately ending with an assignment to window.location how would

Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:03 PM Jeff Gilbert wrote: > I get that, but it reminds me of the reasons people give for "our > website works best in $browser". > I was concerned by this too but found myself swayed by the arguments in

  1   2   >