Re: review stop-energy (was 24hour review)

On 11/07/13 14:24, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 7/11/13 7:59 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: >> Hey, if we had a PTO app that tracked all absences, we could integrate >> with it... >> > > Just in case you were talking about the moco PTO app, it doesn't track > absences for non-MoCo employees, and even fo

Re: Generic data update service?

On 12/07/13 21:12, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > Would such an update increment the version number? I suspect you'd > want to be able to easily determine if an update has been applied, and > having to distinguish e.g. "Firefox 30 without update 1" vs. "Firefox > 30 with update 1" could be annoying

Re: Generic data update service?

On 13/07/13 00:36, Clint Talbert wrote: > This is all good stuff, and I want to support us being nimble. We also > need to balance that against security and quality in our builds. We go > through the release process for a reason, and we exert the energy to QA > these builds and ensure we can update

Re: Generic data update service?

On 07/12/13 05:37 PM, Robert Strong wrote: > On 7/12/2013 1:12 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Gervase Markham >> wrote: >>> We keep hitting cases where we would like Firefoxes in the field to have >>> some data updated using a process which is much lighter in ex

Re: Generic data update service?

On 7/15/2013 9:30 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: On 13/07/13 00:36, Clint Talbert wrote: This is all good stuff, and I want to support us being nimble. We also need to balance that against security and quality in our builds. We go through the release process for a reason, and we exert the energy to

Re: review stop-energy (was 24hour review)

On 7/10/2013 3:09 PM, smaug wrote: Splitting patches is usually useful, but having a patch containing all the changes can be also good. If you have a set of 20-30 patches, but not a patch which contains all the changes, it is often hard to see the big picture. Again, perhaps some tool could help

Re: review stop-energy (was 24hour review)

On 2013-07-11 2:14 PM, Jet Villegas wrote: I may have a skewed view of things, but I personally have not had problems getting prompt code reviews. I also don't have a problem talking to my reviewers about what I'm hacking on. I'm hesitant to throw a bunch of technology at this problem, if it's

Rendering meeting today, Monday 5:30pm PDT (Tuesday in some locations)

The Rendering meeting is about all things Gfx, Image, Layout, and Media. It takes place every second Monday, alternating between 2:30pm PDT and 5:30pm PDT. The next meeting will take place today, Monday, July 15 at 5:30 PM US/Pacific Please add to the agenda: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/GFX

Re: Using C++0x auto

On 7/13/2013 3:15 PM, Kyle Huey wrote: We've dropped support for versions of MSVC prior to 2010, and we're requiring at least GCC 4.4. According to [0] that means we should be able to use /auto/. Anybody know any reasons why we can't start using it? We don't yet require C++11 mode when build

WebAPI Meeting: Tuesday 16 July @ 10 AM Pacific [1]

Meeting Details: * Agenda: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/webapi-meetingnotes * WebAPI Vidyo room * A room we can find, San Francisco office * Spadina conf. room, Toronto office * Allo Allo conf. room, London office * Vidyo Phone # +1-650-903-0800 x92 Conference #98413 (US/INTL) * US Vidyo Phone #

new root certs

How can i add a new root cert to xulrunner from the command line in linux? ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Using C++0x auto

On 7/14/13 10:50 PM, Justin Lebar wrote: >We can't require any c++11 feature until we drop support for gcc 4.4. >[...] there are problems in the gcc 4.4 system headers that make using c++11 mode impossible (except on b2g/android). Is there any reason to support gcc 4.4 outside of B2G/Android?

Re: review stop-energy (was 24hour review)

On 7/15/13 7:10 AM, Honza Bambas wrote: - providing patch split to logically separated parts with numbers like "part 1 of 6" - and also a complete (folded) patch for reference - strictly versioning the patch among review rounds - when submitting a new version of a patch after r- always explain wh

Re: review stop-energy (was 24hour review)

On 7/15/13 2:36 PM, Chris Peterson wrote: If reviewee submits a new version of (say) patch 1 of 6, should they: * attach patch 1 version 2 * an interdiff between patch 1 version 1 and 2 Yes, to both. * and a new complete/folded patch (of patches 1-6)? Usually not needed. Which file would

Re: review stop-energy (was 24hour review)

On Mon 15 Jul 2013 11:43:05 AM PDT, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 7/15/13 2:36 PM, Chris Peterson wrote: If reviewee submits a new version of (say) patch 1 of 6, should they: * attach patch 1 version 2 * an interdiff between patch 1 version 1 and 2 Yes, to both. Bleagh. All of this points to an a

Re: Replacing Gecko's URL parser

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > Another big one I'm aware of is the issue of how to treat '\\' in URLs. In the specification this is resolved in favor of how WebKit/Chromium/Trident go about it. Which is to treat it identically to "/" but flag it with a warning in the conso

Re: review stop-energy (was 24hour review)

On 7/15/13 2:58 PM, Steve Fink wrote: Even for the case of dependent patches (ones with separate parts that cannot be landed together, but are usefully split up for review)? Assuming s/cannot/must/, that's why I said "generally", not "always". ;) Perhaps that's wrong of me, but it seems like

Re: review stop-energy (was 24hour review)

On 7/15/2013 2:58 PM, Steve Fink wrote: On Mon 15 Jul 2013 11:43:05 AM PDT, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 7/15/13 2:36 PM, Chris Peterson wrote: If reviewee submits a new version of (say) patch 1 of 6, should they: * attach patch 1 version 2 * an interdiff between patch 1 version 1 and 2 Yes, to b

Re: review stop-energy (was 24hour review)

On 7/15/2013 8:36 PM, Chris Peterson wrote: On 7/15/13 7:10 AM, Honza Bambas wrote: - providing patch split to logically separated parts with numbers like "part 1 of 6" - and also a complete (folded) patch for reference - strictly versioning the patch among review rounds - when submitting a new

Re: Replacing Gecko's URL parser

On 2013-07-15 3:14 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: Another big one I'm aware of is the issue of how to treat '\\' in URLs. In the specification this is resolved in favor of how WebKit/Chromium/Trident go about it. Which is to treat it identica

Shutting off leak tests?

Hi! Leak tests on OSX have been failing intermittently for nearly a year now[1]. As yet, we don't have any ideas why they're failing, and nobody is working on fixing them. Would anybody be very sad if we shut them off? Are these tests providing useful information any more? If they are stil

Re: Shutting off leak tests?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 13-07-15 1:45 PM, Chris AtLee wrote: > Would anybody be very sad if we shut them off? I would be happy if you did, for the reasons you state. Please shut them off. -r -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Darwin) Comment: Using

Re: Shutting off leak tests?

Has a developer investigated? Steven, do you know anything about this? doug Chris AtLee wrote: Hi! Leak tests on OSX have been failing intermittently for nearly a year now[1]. As yet, we don't have any ideas why they're failing, and nobody is working on fixing them. Would anybody be very sad

Re: Shutting off leak tests?

I'd say go ahead and shut them off. I'm not going to have time to investigate this for the foreseeable future. I'm already dealing with one very difficult (and possibly intractable) tests bug (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=884471), and that's more than enough at one time :-( On 7/

Re: Shutting off leak tests?

I think we can only make this decision once we know the worst case scenario these tests are currently preventing, so that we can mitigate or plan for it. -Alex On Jul 15, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Chris AtLee wrote: > Hi! > > Leak tests on OSX have been failing intermittently for nearly a year now[1]

Re: Shutting off leak tests?

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Alex Keybl wrote: > I think we can only make this decision once we know the worst case > scenario these tests are currently preventing, so that we can mitigate or > plan for it. > > -Alex > > On Jul 15, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Chris AtLee wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > Leak

Re: Shutting off leak tests?

I brought this up ~2 years ago , and we concluded that discussion saying that we should turn these tests off, so bug 617441 was filed and then nothing happened. I don't think anything has changed since we had that discus

Re: Shutting off leak tests?

Makes me sad that the knee jerk reaction is to turn leak testing off before anyone actually does any engineering. Steven, anyone else that can take a look at this mac bug? Steven Michaud July 15, 2013 2:15 PM I'd say go ahead and shut them off. I'm not going to have

Re: Using C++0x auto

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:50:55PM -0700, Justin Lebar wrote: > > We can't require any c++11 feature until we drop support for gcc > > 4.4. [...] there are problems in the gcc 4.4 system headers that > > make using c++11 mode impossible (except on b2g/android). > > Is there any reason to support