Hi, I'm on the engineering productivity team, and work a lot on
continuous integration and test harnesses. I stood up initial Gecko
unittests on B2G emulator, worked on B2G automation for several years up
until the divide, and still help nominally maintain the emulator and
mulet unittests. So that
If we jump on the Marshmallow bandwagon we can drop stlport, Google already
did that too.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1213259
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1218802 - specifically patch
[07]
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2
On 26/01/2016 10:51, jma...@mozilla.com wrote:
> I would assume all gecko patches would get landed on either mozilla-inbound
> or fx-team. If you use mozreview and take advantage of the autoland feature,
> then these specific patches will land on mozilla-inbound.
Thanks, I'll definitely have a
> Same here. I'm now unable to land the gecko dependencies for bug 1227980
> [1] and that's annoying to say the least considering it took a month to
> write and test that thing (not even mentioning the time spent by the
> many reviewers and QA people involved). What are we supposed to do with
> tho
On 26/01/2016 10:19, Shawn Huang wrote:
> Hi Fabrice,
> Following this comment, I'm confused. Do we need to check-in into
> b2g-inbound by hand? "checked-in" keyboard no longer supports FirefoxOS
> project? Does this mean only people who have Level 3 access permission can
> land code?
Same here. I
Hi Fabrice,
Following this comment, I'm confused. Do we need to check-in into
b2g-inbound by hand? "checked-in" keyboard no longer supports FirefoxOS
project? Does this mean only people who have Level 3 access permission can
land code?
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1201778#c102
"d
On 01/25/2016 05:15 PM, Tim Guan-tin Chien wrote:
> What's the scope of "b2g tests"?
>
> I can see obvious ones like any test testing Gaia and tests running on
> Mulet or Emulator, but how about DOM mochitests on, say, Firefox
> Desktop, for APIs that only B2G uses?
>
> Is there a definitive lis
On 2016-01-25 5:59 PM, Juan Gómez wrote:
Yeah, upgarding to gcc 4.8 was a bit tough but it established the basis
for less compllcated upgardes in the future. I could compile all FFOS
flavors (ICS, JB, KK and LL) using gcc-4.9 base toolchain without any
remarcable complication. My plan was to upgr
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Fabrice Desré wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> With the smartphone activity shifting to a more exploratory status, we
> have been discussing with the platform & releng people which setup would
> allow us to keep improving the product and supporting our community of
> users
Yeah, upgarding to gcc 4.8 was a bit tough but it established the basis for
less compllcated upgardes in the future. I could compile all FFOS flavors
(ICS, JB, KK and LL) using gcc-4.9 base toolchain without any remarcable
complication. My plan was to upgrade to gcc 4.9 [1] last year, but we had
to
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:57:40AM -0600, Joshua Cranmer ? wrote:
> On 1/25/2016 11:30 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> >For example, for a long time b2g partners held back our minimum supported
> >gcc. Now that there are no such partner requirements, perhaps we can
> >consider bumping up the minimum to
Sorry. To be clear: the (still existing) hazard builds *do* use the
emulator, which is at least half the reason why they're so difficult to
maintain and upgrade.
I don't know what the Gonk layer is exactly. I do know that there is
code in the gecko tree guarded by #ifdef MOZ_B2G_RIL, and I bel
More over : https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1239082 ; Aren't we
disabling all Buildbot Based b2g desktop "hazard" builds on all trees ?
On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 12:26:58 PM UTC-8, nhi...@mozilla.com wrote:
> I think the QC gonk layer had required 4.7 to lunch.
>
> As far as I
I think the QC gonk layer had required 4.7 to lunch.
As far as I know you would have had to use the emulator from the get go if you
wanted to test the ril? The ril is in the Gonk layer as far as I know still
and the Gonk layer isn't in the mulet nor desktop builds...
On Monday, January 25, 201
On 25/01/16 11:00 AM, Fabrice Desré wrote:
We're also working on a solution to move the b2g builds & tests to
their own infrastructure from which we'll ship our builds & updates.
What specifically does this mean? Do you mean infrastructure at the IT
level? Or at the continuous integration le
On 01/25/2016 09:40 AM, Fabrice Desré wrote:
On 01/25/2016 09:30 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
For example, for a long time b2g partners held back our minimum
supported gcc. Now that there are no such partner requirements, perhaps
we can consider bumping up the minimum to gcc 4.8? (bug 1175546)
W
It sounds basically like Gecko support is cut off for the most part. If
there's no decision to pull it out of teir 3 support, ie a direction for
the project needs to be decided...
the project will eventually fail unless we lock into a gecko. (60 % of
failures for smoke tests come from gecko).
Ho
On 1/25/2016 11:30 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
For example, for a long time b2g partners held back our minimum
supported gcc. Now that there are no such partner requirements,
perhaps we can consider bumping up the minimum to gcc 4.8? (bug 1175546)
Strictly speaking, I would advocate for 4.8.1,
On 01/25/2016 09:30 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> For example, for a long time b2g partners held back our minimum
> supported gcc. Now that there are no such partner requirements, perhaps
> we can consider bumping up the minimum to gcc 4.8? (bug 1175546)
We moved to 4.8 on b2g a year ago: see
http
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Ehsan Akhgari
> wrote:
>
> > For example, for a long time b2g partners held back our minimum supported
> > gcc. Now that there are no such partner requirements, perhaps we can
> > consider bumping up the mi
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Ehsan Akhgari
wrote:
> For example, for a long time b2g partners held back our minimum supported
> gcc. Now that there are no such partner requirements, perhaps we can
> consider bumping up the minimum to gcc 4.8? (bug 1175546)
>
> I'm sure others have similar
On 2016-01-25 12:11 PM, Fabrice Desré wrote:
Hi Ehsan,
On 01/25/2016 08:38 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
I have two questions about this:
1. What does this mean for Firefox OS specific code in Gecko which is
designed to keep some level of testing possible on the Firefox OS side
by adding hacks to
On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 8:38:08 AM UTC-8, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> Hi Fabrice,
>
> On 2016-01-25 11:00 AM, Fabrice Desré wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> >With the smartphone activity shifting to a more exploratory status, we
> > have been discussing with the platform & releng people which setup
Hi Ehsan,
On 01/25/2016 08:38 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> I have two questions about this:
>
> 1. What does this mean for Firefox OS specific code in Gecko which is
> designed to keep some level of testing possible on the Firefox OS side
> by adding hacks to Gecko? Another example is hacks that
Hi Fabrice,
On 2016-01-25 11:00 AM, Fabrice Desré wrote:
Hi all,
With the smartphone activity shifting to a more exploratory status, we
have been discussing with the platform & releng people which setup would
allow us to keep improving the product and supporting our community of
users while
Hi all,
With the smartphone activity shifting to a more exploratory status, we
have been discussing with the platform & releng people which setup would
allow us to keep improving the product and supporting our community of
users while minimizing impact on other parts of the organization.
The
26 matches
Mail list logo
