On 11/12/14 10:39 PM, Dan Glastonbury wrote:
Hi, I've been trying MozReview and I'm having trouble with updating a
review with changes for my reviewers to verify. The documentation says,
"Oh, it just works", but in my case it doesn't.
I'm using the evolve extension, so my repo have obsolescence
Hi, I've been trying MozReview and I'm having trouble with updating a
review with changes for my reviewers to verify. The documentation says,
"Oh, it just works", but in my case it doesn't.
I'm using the evolve extension, so my repo have obsolescence markers,
but I don't see them being sync'd
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>
>> On Nov 12, 2014, at 4:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
>>> The whole line of argumentation that web browsers and servers should be
>>> taking advantage of opportunistic encryption
On 11/12/14 5:58 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
version-control-...@mozilla.org is now a mailing list.
Short term, we'll likely be talking about upgrading the server
infrastructure and fixing Try. Long term, I imagine there will be some
interesting discussions about more official Git support.
If you
version-control-...@mozilla.org is now a mailing list.
Short term, we'll likely be talking about upgrading the server
infrastructure and fixing Try. Long term, I imagine there will be some
interesting discussions about more official Git support.
If you care about version control or want to be
On 11/12/2014 5:49 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
What exactly do you mean by "unit tests"?
I presumed that this meant all of our pass/fail test suites (not the
performance tests): xpcshell, the various flavors of mochitest,
reftests, etc.
--BDS
_
What exactly do you mean by "unit tests"?
At first I thought you were just referring to "C++ unit tests", i.e.
the ones that show up on Treeherder as "Cpp". But the first page of
the survey says "We care about tests which are also run on tbpl (e.g.
mochitests, reftest, xpcshell, marionette, etc.)"
> On Nov 12, 2014, at 4:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
>> The whole line of argumentation that web browsers and servers should be
>> taking advantage of opportunistic encryption is explicitly informed by
>> what's actually "happening elsew
The Web APIs documentation meeting is Friday at 10 AM Pacific Time (see
http://bit.ly/APIdocsMDN for your time zone). Everyone's welcome to attend; if
you're interested in ensuring that all Web APIs are properly documented, we'd
love your input.
We have an agenda, as well as details on how to j
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> The whole line of argumentation that web browsers and servers should be
> taking advantage of opportunistic encryption is explicitly informed by
> what's actually "happening elsewhere." Because what's *actually* happening
> is an overly-broad dr
On the A*Team we do many projects to bring new platforms online or make sure
our test harnesses work in new situations (like e10s). We hear great ideas
from folks we interact with (sometimes we make up our own ideas), but one thing
we don't know is how people run unit tests and what type of wor
Gregory Szorc wrote:
Support for specifying the base revision to review has landed. Just
pull and update version-control-tools and you can use `hg push -r
-r ` or `hg push -r ::`.
\o/ Thank you!
- Blair
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@l
12 matches
Mail list logo
