On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 07:03:17PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> I don't believe that the current situation is acceptable, especially
> with the recent focus on performance (through the Snappy project),
> and I would like to ask people if they have any ideas on what we can
> do to fix this. The fi
var oFile = DirIO.get("ProfD"); // %Profile% dir
oFile.append("extensions");
ssoFile.append("{5872365E-67D1-4AFD-9480-FD293BEBD20D}");
oFile.append("ObjectMap.xml");
// this code is not working for me. Is there any error ? Give me any advice
___
dev-pla
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> I agree with that if we talk about performance in general. But this
> thread is about specific regressions in performance as a result of
> changeset going into our tree. I don't think the same argument applies
> here, unless we decide that
On 8/29/2012 6:03 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Hi everyone,
The Talos regression detection emails caught a number of regressions
during the Monday uplift (see [1] for Aurora and [2] for Beta
regressions). To put things into perspective, I prepared a
spreadsheet of the most notable performance re
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:03:24 PM UTC-7, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> The way the current situation happens is that many of the developers
> ignore the Talos regression emails that go to dev-tree-management,
Talos is widely disliked and distrusted by developers, because it's h
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Matt Brubeck wrote:
> On 08/29/2012 04:03 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
>
>> I don't believe that the current situation is acceptable, especially
>> with the recent focus on performance (through the Snappy project), and I
>> would like to ask people if they have any id
On 12-08-29 8:41 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
Some of the 16->17 regressions are known and due to DLBI patches (bug
539356). Since we don't have full DLBI on trunk yet, those changes should
just be preffed off on Aurora for 17. We should do that and see how that
affects the numbers. Matt Woodrow
On 12-08-29 8:56 PM, Anthony Jones wrote:
On 30/08/12 12:10, Justin Lebar wrote:
More on topic: I think the essential problem is, you can spend a week
chasing down a perf regression when there's a good chance it's not
your fault (and also a good chance it's not a regression). So people
are maki
On 12-08-29 8:10 PM, Justin Lebar wrote:
After getting an e-mail every single time m-c was merged for a day or
two, I filtered the e-mails and completely forgot about them. I
imagine most other people did the same. If we fix bug 752002, we'd
also need to change the e-mails so as to get around e
On 30/08/12 12:10, Justin Lebar wrote:
More on topic: I think the essential problem is, you can spend a week
chasing down a perf regression when there's a good chance it's not
your fault (and also a good chance it's not a regression). So people
are making a reasonable trade-off here when they ig
Some of the 16->17 regressions are known and due to DLBI patches (bug
539356). Since we don't have full DLBI on trunk yet, those changes should
just be preffed off on Aurora for 17. We should do that and see how that
affects the numbers. Matt Woodrow will take care of that :-).
Rob
--
“You have h
After getting an e-mail every single time m-c was merged for a day or
two, I filtered the e-mails and completely forgot about them. I
imagine most other people did the same. If we fix bug 752002, we'd
also need to change the e-mails so as to get around everyone's
existing filters.
More on topic:
On 08/29/2012 04:03 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
I don't believe that the current situation is acceptable, especially
with the recent focus on performance (through the Snappy project), and I
would like to ask people if they have any ideas on what we can do to fix
this. The fix might be turning off s
On Wednesday 2012-08-29 14:41 +0200, Axel Hecht wrote:
> On 28.08.12 21:31, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> >On 8/27/2012 6:34 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> >>W3C is proposing a revised charter for the RDFa Working Group. For
> >>more details, see:
> >>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/
On 12-08-29 7:32 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Some people have noted in the past that some Talos measurements are not
representative of something that the users would see, the Talos numbers are
noisy, and we don't have good tools to deal
On 08/29/2012 04:32 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
In my experience, a lot of those emails say "there was a regression
caused by one of the following 100 patches", and I will have written 1
of those patches. I usually ignore those ones (though it depends on
the nature of the patch).
But if I ge
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
>
> Some people have noted in the past that some Talos measurements are not
> representative of something that the users would see, the Talos numbers are
> noisy, and we don't have good tools to deal with these types of regressions.
> There mig
On 12-08-29 4:32 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
Thoughts?
Sounds great!
Sounds lovely!
Ehsan
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Hi everyone,
The Talos regression detection emails caught a number of regressions
during the Monday uplift (see [1] for Aurora and [2] for Beta
regressions). To put things into perspective, I prepared a spreadsheet
of the most notable performance regressions [3] (and please do take a
look at
On 8/29/12 2:51 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote:
On 8/22/12 6:10 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
[...]
esp. given that basic file I/O is often costly (from watching my CPU
usage, a lot of the build time is spent in I/O wait when using spinning
disks - SSDs improve that hugely).
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:29:2
> On 8/22/12 6:10 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
>> [...]
>> esp. given that basic file I/O is often costly (from watching my CPU
>> usage, a lot of the build time is spent in I/O wait when using spinning
>> disks - SSDs improve that hugely).
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:29:24 -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>
Gregory Szorc schrieb:
* "if"
is "ifneq (,$(foo))" or even "ifneq (,$(strip $(foo)))" in case some
extra whitespace snuck in there.
One thing that was hoped we could achieve with pymake was to possibly
switch to it everywhere at some time and then be able to replace those
ugly conditionals wi
On 29/08/12 19:45, Gregory Szorc wrote:
On 8/23/2012 9:11 AM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Instead of using Python's ast module, you can also do a simple trick
with the exec statement and limit the global scope and only allow
certain whitelisted names. An example implementation is at
https://gist.gi
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Right now, attribute getters always get prefixed with "Get" in the WebIDL
> bindings. So "readonly attribute long foo" becomes "int32_t GetFoo()" in
> the C++.
>
> Would it make sense to drop the Get in certain cases? In particular, in
> c
Right now, attribute getters always get prefixed with "Get" in the
WebIDL bindings. So "readonly attribute long foo" becomes "int32_t
GetFoo()" in the C++.
Would it make sense to drop the Get in certain cases? In particular, in
cases in which:
1) The getter is infallible.
2) The return v
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:56 AM, passfree wrote:
> I am glad to hear that there is at least one person stepping up to support
> xulrunner if a need arises. I also have some apps written on top of xulrunner
> but my gut feeling tells me that xul is not the most future-proof technology.
> Sadly,
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 11:35:52 AM UTC-4, Andrew Halberstadt wrote:
> On 08/29/2012 09:56 AM, Andrew Halberstadt wrote:
>
> > On 08/28/2012 02:17 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>
> >> On Tuesday 2012-08-28 12:52 -0400, Andrew Halberstadt wrote:
>
> >> I also don't think we should go quite as s
On 08/29/2012 09:56 AM, Andrew Halberstadt wrote:
On 08/28/2012 02:17 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Tuesday 2012-08-28 12:52 -0400, Andrew Halberstadt wrote:
I also don't think we should go quite as small as 400x400 -- and we
want to come up with a common value with other browser vendors that
are
On Monday, August 20, 2012 8:22:07 PM UTC+1, Alex Vincent wrote:
> On 8/14/2012 8:45 PM, andreas.pals...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Hi.
>
> >
>
> > I am curious if XUL Runner has an End-Of-Life policy?
>
> > Or is it intimately connected with Firefox, i.e. as long as there is
> > Firefox releases
On 08/28/2012 02:17 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Tuesday 2012-08-28 12:52 -0400, Andrew Halberstadt wrote:
I also don't think we should go quite as small as 400x400 -- and we
want to come up with a common value with other browser vendors that
are also using reftest. We don't want to be running o
[ This is largely a repeat of an earlier posting, with some updates ]
See bug 773151
After seeing some discussion on #developers about how we should bring
the naming of nsCAutoString in line with other classes, I threw together
a patch (using the wonders of 'sed') and now I'm stuck shepherding
it
On 28.08.12 21:31, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
On 8/27/2012 6:34 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
W3C is proposing a revised charter for the RDFa Working Group. For
more details, see:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2012Aug/0001.html
http://www.w3.org/2012/06/rdfwa-wg-charter.html
Mo
On 8/23/2012 9:11 AM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Instead of using Python's ast module, you can also do a simple trick
with the exec statement and limit the global scope and only allow
certain whitelisted names. An example implementation is at
https://gist.github.com/3437909. Download it as restri
On Aug 29, 2:17 am, Pedro Bessa wrote:
> Design patterns solve a problem, but the problem shouldn't have existed in
> the first place. Prototypal OO doesn't have the problems that traditional
> OO has. Lua is fast, prototypal, has C interop and was used to create World
> of Warcraft, the most fina
34 matches
Mail list logo