Thanks for pointing that text out, Jet! Samsung Internet, Oculus Browser,
Microsoft Edge, and Firefox have all either shipped or have plans to ship
the released version of the WebVR API (see
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/01/mozilla-brings-virtual-reality-to-all-firefox-users/
for a table) a
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Byron Jones wrote:
>
>> Consider that we are talking about "turning off" mozreview now. Will all
>> the bugzilla links to those reviews go dead? Or do we have to maintain a
>> second service in read-only mode forever?
>
> the patches will be archived in some for
So, I've been kinda working toward the "more rust in gecko" goal, in my own
space that just happened to be a good sandbox for it.
Last year I was brought over to help on WebAuthn, which needs access to USB
HID for things like Yubikeys. I decided to write the lowest level cross
platform parts of th
Interesting points.
- *using breakpad* - was the problem that creating wrappers to access
the c/c++ code was too tedious? Could bindgen help with that, if not it
would be interesting gather some details about why it wouldn't work and
file bugs against it.
- *pingsender* - was someth
On 7/12/17 11:54 AM, Byron Jones wrote:
or uploading patches directly to bugzilla.
But still rewriting existing links (including from the mirrored review
comment comments, so it's clear which diff the review comments applied
to), right?
-Boris
_
On Wednesday 2017-07-12 06:18 -0700, emor...@mozilla.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 04:09:52 UTC+1, Karl Tomlinson wrote:
> > I assume this was integrated with OrangeFactor?
> >
> > That is the only way I know to determine whether an intermittent
> > failure has occurred, because failure
Yes, my query for bugs to close filters for "leave-open".
Thanks!
-- Emma
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:18 AM, wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 04:09:52 UTC+1, Karl Tomlinson wrote:
> > I assume this was integrated with OrangeFactor?
> >
> > That is the only way I know to determine whether an
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Byron Jones wrote:
> Consider that we are talking about "turning off" mozreview now. Will all
>> the bugzilla links to those reviews go dead? Or do we have to maintain a
>> second service in read-only mode forever?
>>
>
> the patches will be archived in some for
There's a lot of maneuvering going on with all the WebVR browser vendors
about which VR hardware vendors will get "Tier 1" support. The support
matrix can get quite complex as more vendors come in, and many of these new
vendors will not be W3C members. It would be good to encourage a more
inclusive
On Wednesday 2017-07-12 06:48 -0500, Lars Bergstrom wrote:
> There is some contention in the WebVR community group around the submission
> of this charter proposal, as there is currently no public support from any
> of the implementers in making this transition away from a community group:
> https:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Byron Jones wrote:
> But indeed having also the patches in bugzilla would be good.
>>
> no, it would be bad for patches to be duplicated into bugzilla. we're
> moving from bugzilla/mozreview to phabricator for code review, duplicating
> phabricate reviews back i
Milan Sreckovic wrote:
One thing that hasn't been explicitly mentioned, and I hope switching to
phabricator would fix it (though it does sounds like an orthogonal
issue) - the patches that are attached to bugzilla are often not the
ones that actually landed, because last minute changes were made
Perfect, love it.
One thing that hasn't been explicitly mentioned, and I hope switching to
phabricator would fix it (though it does sounds like an orthogonal
issue) - the patches that are attached to bugzilla are often not the
ones that actually landed, because last minute changes were made an
Consider that we are talking about "turning off" mozreview now. Will all
the bugzilla links to those reviews go dead? Or do we have to maintain a
second service in read-only mode forever?
the patches will be archived in some form.
how this looks is yet to be fully fleshed out - ideas curren
On 12-Jul-17 11:27, Byron Jones wrote:
...
But indeed having also the patches in bugzilla would be good.
no, it would be bad for patches to be duplicated into bugzilla. we're
moving from bugzilla/mozreview to phabricator for code review,
duplicating phabricate reviews back into the old system
Yeah, I live in the assumption that bugzilla bugs will contain all the
review information also
in phabricator era.
i believe the current plan is to mirror just the outcome of the review
to bugzilla (ie. that a review exists, and set the review flag).
if comments should be mirrored to bugzilla
> On Jul 11, 2017, at 22:24, Mike Hommey wrote:
>
> Splinter is still a nice UI to look at patches already attached to bugs.
> Please don't disable it.
>
> Mike
As a note, we currently support viewing GitHub Pull Requests in splinter as if
they were patches
example:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.
On 07/12/2017 04:20 PM, Ben Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Byron Jones wrote:
instead of disabling splinter for phabricator backed products, we could
make
it a read-only patch viewer.
Given the number of bugs that exi
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Byron Jones wrote:
> > instead of disabling splinter for phabricator backed products, we could
> make
> > it a read-only patch viewer.
>
> Given the number of bugs that exist with patches attached, that wo
On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 04:09:52 UTC+1, Karl Tomlinson wrote:
> I assume this was integrated with OrangeFactor?
>
> That is the only way I know to determine whether an intermittent
> failure has occurred, because failures are not necessarily
> reported to bugzilla.
This is no longer the case,
There is some contention in the WebVR community group around the submission
of this charter proposal, as there is currently no public support from any
of the implementers in making this transition away from a community group:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webvr/2017Jul/0056.html
I wo
On 10/07/2017 12:29, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> Hi,
> What are the obstacles? Here are some that I've heard.
> [...]
> Anything else?
In the past year I wrote two tools (minidump-analyzer and pingsender)
that ship with Firefox but are separate executables so both were good
candidates for being
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:38 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> Also, for what it's worth, given offline feedback, I plan to support
> the Service Workers WG charter. Apparently much of the discussion
> about service workers happens in WHATWG forums, but it still seems
> valuable to have the work happen
23 matches
Mail list logo
