Joshua Cranmer wrote:
On 7/31/2013 9:19 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Now think of all those NS_LITERAL_STRING() and other horrible
boilerplate we have.
... and my next target is s/PRUnichar/char16_t/, the last step of
which basically amounts to killing NS_LITERAL_STRING. :-)
Will that
On 2013-07-31 8:57 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Sadly, mercurial doesn't support having multiple working directories
from a single clone, which would be useful to avoid wasting so much
disk space on .hg.
I'm 85% sure that Mercurial, on filesystems that support it, creates
hardlinks instead of
Sadly, mercurial doesn't support having multiple working directories
from a single clone, which would be useful to avoid wasting so much
disk space on .hg.
I'm 85% sure that Mercurial, on filesystems that support it, creates
hardlinks instead of copies if you hg clone mozilla-central
Hi,
* most of the ts test performance hit that we were expecting should have
finished being reported
* we had missed enabling talos mozharness for the PGO builders
** this means that the PGO branches will start reporting today and might
take a day or two to clear up (like the other branches)
*
Neil wrote:
Joshua Cranmer wrote:
On 7/31/2013 9:19 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Now think of all those NS_LITERAL_STRING() and other horrible
boilerplate we have.
... and my next target is s/PRUnichar/char16_t/, the last step of
which basically amounts to killing NS_LITERAL_STRING. :-)
On 07/31/2013 01:25 AM, Brian Smith wrote:
Anyway, it would be easier to swallow the dependency on MFBT if it wasn't
so large (over 100 files now), if it tried to be (just) a polyfill for
missing standard library features, and if it could easily be used
independently of the Gecko build system.
You can now file bugs against this extension at Other Applications ::
mozext. I anticipate many awesome feature requests and embarrassing bugs.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Other%20Applicationscomponent=mozext
On 7/26/13 11:07 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
Since I announced
Gavin Sharp schrieb:
This has exposed some e10s crashes that previously weren't exposed on
desktop. I've filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=899758 to
track them - please hang any other such crashes off that bug. If you're
working in a component that has e10s-related crashes,
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 01:06:27PM +0200, Brian Smith wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
I strongly oppose to any requirement that would make ESR+2 (ESR31)
not build on the
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Joshua Cranmer pidgeo...@gmail.comwrote:
More generally, nobody should be reasonably expected to write code that
builds with any combination that isn't used on mozilla-central's TBPL. So,
(clang, MSVC) is not really something to consider, for example.
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 04:13:23PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote:
We have a number of references to OS/2 throughout the build system
and source tree. According to Kyle Huey OS/2 has likely broken since
we removed --disable-ipc (bug 638755) in March 2011.
There have been OS/2-related changes
On 8/1/2013 5:46 PM, Brian Smith wrote:
FWIW, I talked about this issue with a group of ~10 Mozillians here in
Berlin and all of them (AFAICT) were in favor of requiring that the latest
versions of GCC be used, or even dropping GCC support completely in favor
of clang, if it means that we can
CCing the last two persons who submitted patches for OS/2
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 04:13:23PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote:
We have a number of references to OS/2 throughout the build system
and source tree. According to Kyle Huey OS/2 has likely broken since
we removed --disable-ipc (bug 638755)
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
There have been OS/2-related changes landing way after that date, so I
doubt it is actually broken. In fact, there's been an OS/2 specific
landing a week ago (!).
Bug 501496 and bug 712105 were pretty mechanical changes that
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 04:25:25PM -0700, Matt Brubeck wrote:
Debian doesn't keep Iceweasel up to date in oldstable anyway.
Actually, I'm providing backports for oldstable. 24 is as far as I'm
ready to go to support oldstable until its actual EOL next year. Which
is why i want ESR24 to remain
On 2013-08-01, at 7:38 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 04:13:23PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote:
We have a number of references to OS/2 throughout the build system
and source tree. According to Kyle Huey OS/2 has likely broken since
we removed --disable-ipc (bug 638755) in March
Could this be why I'm starting to see banner ads in some of my newtab-page
snapshots, despite never seeing them in a tab? I don't appear to see this on an
old nightly24 snapshot I have lying around.
-Jeff
- Original Message -
From: Gavin Sharp ga...@gavinsharp.com
To: dev-platform
Seems likely, I recall markh mentioning something similar - adblock
probably doesn't work in the content process.
Gavin
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Jeff Gilbert jgilb...@mozilla.com wrote:
Could this be why I'm starting to see banner ads in some of my newtab-page
snapshots, despite never
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Gavin Sharp ga...@gavinsharp.com wrote:
Seems likely, I recall markh mentioning something similar - adblock probably
doesn't work in the content process.
That seems... less than ideal. I don't think creeping down the e10s
path when all the e10s issues haven't
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Nicholas Nethercote
n.netherc...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Gavin Sharp ga...@gavinsharp.com wrote:
Seems likely, I recall markh mentioning something similar - adblock
probably
doesn't work in the content process.
That seems... less
The experiment you're referring to was Adblock running in Firefox with
remote tabs enabled, I think. I'm not up to date with how that
experiment was progressing, but I think there are some fundamental
differences between that scenario and the background content processes
being used for the
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Gavin Sharp ga...@gavinsharp.com wrote:
Do you have specific issues you're worried about, or are you just speaking
about issues in general?
This AdBlock issue worries me specifically. And the fact that there's
breakage with our #1 add-on makes me worry in
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Nicholas Nethercote
n.netherc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Gavin Sharp ga...@gavinsharp.com wrote:
Do you have specific issues you're worried about, or are you just speaking
about issues in general?
This AdBlock issue worries me
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Nicholas Nethercote
n.netherc...@gmail.com wrote:
Huh? This sentence seems entirely antithetical to our standard
operating procedure. I.e. backing out known regressions, etc.
What known regression are you referring to here? Ads on thumbnails?
That seems like a
On 08/01/2013 06:50 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Gavin Sharp ga...@gavinsharp.com wrote:
Do you have specific issues you're worried about, or are you just speaking
about issues in general?
This AdBlock issue worries me specifically. And the fact that there's
25 matches
Mail list logo
