On 1/18/13 2:06 PM, Mihai Sucan wrote:
> At this point I hope aurora reopens ASAP. Apologies for the trouble.
Nope. The devtools leaks, while interesting and potentially troublesome,
weren't really a significant tree-closing problem.
Now we're down to Linux64 and Win7 both failing (by which I mea
Hello everyone!
A summary of the situation:
1. bug 824016 was a known intermittent failure that we believe we fixed in
m-c with bug 827083. I did some important changes to how the web console
initializes / destroys - changes that we hope allow us to better ensure in
our tests that we liste
Hi,
Next Monday, the Graphics teem has a work week in Toronto. Given this and
the low non-Gfx attendance in the last Rendering meeting or two, we think
it's better not to have a Rendering meeting this Monday, but we will
consider rescheduling it to the next Monday.
Thanks,
Benoit
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:50 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Friday 2013-01-18 11:49 -0500, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> > I see. I think your assumption in point #2 above is mistaken. We
> > do not close trees because of the gravity of issues affecting the
> > code base. We do close them when there
On 2013-01-18 10:35 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On related news, this thread diverged into multiple different private
threads, and it seems like the devtools team has two patches in bugs
824016 and 774619 which can probably help. I have asked them to land
both patches as they don't require approval
On Friday 2013-01-18 11:49 -0500, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> I see. I think your assumption in point #2 above is mistaken. We
> do not close trees because of the gravity of issues affecting the
> code base. We do close them when there are busted builds or failing
> tests because those prevent proper
On 2013-01-18 11:35 AM, Justin Lebar wrote:
To restate dbaron's argument in my own words:
1. There is a known issue affecting both beta and aurora nightly builds.
2. Either the issue is or isn't serious enough to warrant closing the
aurora tree.
3. If it is serious enough to warrant clos
> I was trying to suggest that we usually close trees for
> build/test bustage, not for there being regressions there, so I don't see a
> reason to close beta. I don't understand whether you're arguing that we
> should close beta or are you just pointing out a problem in what I said.
I was more t
On 2013-01-18 11:03 AM, Justin Lebar wrote:
Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:39 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
So given that this is a regression in Firefox 19 (which is now on
beta), and the only reason we're not seeing this permaorange on beta
is b
Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:39 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
>
>> So given that this is a regression in Firefox 19 (which is now on
>> beta), and the only reason we're not seeing this permaorange on beta
>> is because we don't generate non-debug ni
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:39 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> So given that this is a regression in Firefox 19 (which is now on
> beta), and the only reason we're not seeing this permaorange on beta
> is because we don't generate non-debug nightly builds on beta (and I
> don't think we run tests on an
Hi,
I am using nsIObserver from within javascript to subscribe to topics and
nsIObserverService from C++ xpcom to push notification for topics to the UI.
I noticed that the notifications are sent fine but the nsIObserver only
receives them when I have a JS/XUL Gui interaction towards _any_ of m
On Thursday 2013-01-17 17:58 -0500, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> The Aurora tree was closed yesterday by Ed because of the perma-orange
> failure filed in bug 823989, which went unnoticed for quite some time
> before Ed closed the tree. This morning, I tried to reproduce the bug
> locally using the info
13 matches
Mail list logo
