Re: Intent to ship: Throttling timeouts in background using execution budget.

Thanks a lot for working on this, it sounds awesome! Can I ask if there are any related telemetry probes that will be used later on to evaluate the results and maybe tune these constants? Do you plan to expose any of these parameters to web extensions? Gabor On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 5:27 PM,

Re: Creating a content process during shutdown...

I guess the question is how do you define "after we've entered shutdown". For the preallocated process manager both "profile-change-teardown" and "xpcom-shutdown" will prevent any further process spawning. For the preloaded browser in tabbrowser.xml we usually instead of creating a process for

Re: Kris Maglione and Andrew McCreight are now XPConnect Peers

Totally deserved. Congrats to both of you! Gabor On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Bobby Holley wrote: > XPConnect is not exactly a fun module. When I took the reins from mrbkap > 4.5 years ago, Peter wiped a tear from his eye and said "Congratulations, > Blake." > >

Re: disabled non-e10s tests on trunk

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:36 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > Hmm. Do we load about:blank from the url bar in a content process? > > Yes. I agree, I find it annoying too that we have to rely on MOZ_DEBUG_CHILD_PROCESS or MOZ_DEBUG_CHILD_PAUSE and that I have to be clever all the

Re: Extensions and Gecko specific APIs

In my mind at least the concept is to share the API across all browsers where we can, but WebExtensions should not be limited to APIs that are accepted and implemented by all browser vendors. Google extensions have some Google app specific API that we might never implement because of technical

Re: More Rust code

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Kris Maglione wrote: > Combined with the fact that I would have needed to find and dig through > various scattered mailing list posts and wiki pages, and then pester a > bunch of people by email or IRC just to get started, I've always given

Re: e10s-multi update and tests

Hi, On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Fischer Liu wrote: > We are using dom.ipc.processCount to limit the count of process. > After updating dom.ipc.processCount, do we still need to restart Firefox? > > It depends. It will prevent any new processes to be launched that would go

Re: e10s-multi on Aurora

We are going to do a beta experiment when 54 hits the beta channel. If everything matches the release criteria right away we might ship with 54, but that is more like a 'bonus' scenario. The official plan is as Chris said, releasing it with 55. On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Chris Peterson

Re: e10s-multi update and tests

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 8:56 AM, tapper wrote: > Hi is a11y working yet? > Last time I tried it out it kept crashing. > > ___ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org >

Re: e10s-multi update and tests

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Andrew McCreight > > wrote: > > > > > Though maybe you are asking which processes count against the limit of 4. > > > > Yes, that's what I am asking.

Re: The future of commit access policy for core Firefox

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > > Depending on the relative timezones of the reviewer and reviewee, that > could delay landing by 24 hours or even a whole weekend. > > As someone working from Europe and 90% of the time with people from the

Re: Content process launch time distribution

Thanks a lot for these numbers! Also, is there a way to get numbers for the time from process launch to the point when we start loading the first URL in the new content process? We run a lot of frame and process scripts sooner than we would get there, and I'm afraid we would get even worse numbers

Re: Multiple content processes in Nightly

Hello everyone, After quite a few attempts and some more bug fixing the patch finally seem to stuck. Thanks for all the help! \o/ Gabor On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Gabor Krizsanits <gkrizsan...@mozilla.com> wrote: > The patch has been backed out because of the merge. To be

Re: Multiple content processes in Nightly

number of content processes we use as well as playing with more > exciting process allocation strategies. We are not yet planning to > ride the trains. > > In order to turn on in Nightly, Gabor Krizsanits has been doing a ton > of work to make sure our tests are green. We've had

Re: Guidance wanted: checking whether a channel (?) comes from a particular domain

I don't think we have exactly what you need, but here is what we have and can be extended to match your use case. 1. What we have is ExpandedPrincipal, which is essentially an array of principals (it subsumes all those principals). What we don't have is a wild card principal which you could use

Re: Searchfox (new code search tool)

Wow, this is amazing. Million thanks for this, especially for the speed, the easy blame walk and the highlight. I always wanted to have a tool for the traversing history like that. One thing I miss is to see the revision number / contributor name on the side bar for each line on the sidebar in

Re: PSA: Cancel your old Try pushes

As someone who was high on the list of try server usage for two weeks My problem was a test I tried to fix for both e10s and non-e10s, and it timed out _sometimes_ on _some_ platforms even depending on debug/release build. It was a whack-a-mole game by fiddling with the test and a complex

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Benjamin Smedberg <benja...@smedbergs.us> wrote: > > > On 3/12/2016 7:19 PM, Gabor Krizsanits wrote: > >> >> Seems like a tough decision for such a short time... There were some >> great >> points on both sides so

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

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: Improving Platform quality

While the other thread about fuzzing friendly Gecko is an interesting option I would like to go back to the original topic, and start another thread to collect other ideas too, that might help getting better on the performance front. Here are some of my thoughts after spending some time with the

Re: Talos e10s dashboard

I've just visited guardian.co.uk, *(Bug 1252822* ) scrolling seems quite bad... :( On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Chris Peterson wrote: > On 3/1/16 9:57 AM, William Lachance wrote: > >> Also, mconley suggested being

Re: Proposal to remove `aFoo` prescription from the Mozilla style guide for C and C++

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Bobby Holley bobbyhol...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Eric Rahm er...@mozilla.com wrote: I'm not a huge fan of the 'aFoo' style, but I am a huge fan of consistency. So if we want to change the style guide we should update our codebase,

Re: Excessive inbound bustage

then it's fine to land it on m-i without try. Maybe because I usually work on core, and such confidence is hard to reach there, but I'd like to think at least a try run that check if the patch builds on all platform and a full test run on at least one platform is not too much sacrifice of ones

Re: Review problems

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Gavin Sharp ga...@gavinsharp.com wrote: This is a difficult problem to discuss in the abstract. It should never be the case that you are waiting for weeks/months - you should either be getting reviews within a week (at worst), or be getting responses saying

Review problems

I think I'm not the only one experienced issues with reviews from one side or the other. I'm wondering if we could do some improvements here for everyone's sake. Here are the issues the way I see it: * some parts of the code need more peers - we should identify the areas - we should select

Announcing early any changes on the try server and the exact build envs

, (especially not with warnings-as-errors turned on...) for obvious reasons. But I think we could do better about announcing any changes on it early, so we could all update or systems in time accordingly, and avoid having to deal with these kind of problems in the worst possible time. - Gabor Krizsanits

Re: Announcing early any changes on the try server and the exact build envs

It's pretty rare that things such OS, Compiler, SDK change on our build systems. We do tend to make noise about them when that happens, too. Do you have specific examples to point at? Where can I follow these changes? One specific example is bug 1002729 and the like... Currently m-c does

Re: Please do not add new web-exposed XPCOM objects

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Benjamin Smedberg benja...@smedbergs.uswrote: Maybe this means we should consider exposing some kind of structured-clone system for calling untrusted code, plus a safer way to call functions which may return arbitrary results? This actually already