I've noticed seven moz.build files containing tabs, I assume this is
undesirable?
--
Warning: May contain traces of nuts.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
On 3/2/2014 5:25 AM, Neil wrote:
> I've noticed seven moz.build files containing tabs, I assume this is
> undesirable?
>
Yes. We should probably make the moz.build reader error on tabs.
-Ted
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
h
On 2014-03-02, 9:12 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
On 3/2/2014 5:25 AM, Neil wrote:
I've noticed seven moz.build files containing tabs, I assume this is
undesirable?
Yes. We should probably make the moz.build reader error on tabs.
+1, and filed Bug 978582 [1].
Nick
[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.
On 2/28/2014 8:44 PM, John Schoenick wrote:
> On 02/28/2014 05:40 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote:
>> On 02/28/2014 05:32 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>>> Why not change the try repo reset procedure so that instead of just
>>> cloning mozilla-central, you also pull from the old try repo into
>>> the new one
How much simpler could our style code be if we followed this path? What
do the standards and other browser vendors say about this? Horrible
idea? Great idea? Mixed?
"This is in preparation for simplifying the Blink style
resolution code by removing the concept of user styles."
https://src.chro
On Sunday 2014-03-02 10:58 -0800, Asa Dotzler wrote:
> How much simpler could our style code be if we followed this path?
> What do the standards and other browser vendors say about this?
> Horrible idea? Great idea? Mixed?
>
> "This is in preparation for simplifying the Blink style
> resolution c
On Sunday, 2 March 2014 19:58:28 UTC+1, Asa Dotzler wrote:
> How much simpler could our style code be if we followed this path? What
>
> do the standards and other browser vendors say about this? Horrible
>
> idea? Great idea? Mixed?
>
>
>
> "This is in preparation for simplifying the Blink
I am not really sure, but does this mean that addons like Stylish won't
work any more ? (or is it some other user styles)
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Tim wrote:
> On Sunday, 2 March 2014 19:58:28 UTC+1, Asa Dotzler wrote:
> > How much simpler could our style code be if we followed this pat
Hi,
I've watched you guys thinking for an hour ;-)
Some comments from me.
Yes to moving build flows that generate assets into the tree.
Yes to having a way for developers to reproduce what automation does.
Yes to having jobs being executed more on demand than on push, and
having that have idem
This most "dumb" idea ever, ATM we still can do with Firefox what we like, if I
don't like Australis i can change that easy, if You remove this opportunity
than simple close Mozilla, link Chrome download on main side and forget about
it...
___
dev-pla
On 03/02/2014 01:58 PM, Asa Dotzler wrote:
> How much simpler could our style code be if we followed this path?
> What do the standards and other browser vendors say about this?
> Horrible idea? Great idea? Mixed?
>
> "This is in preparation for simplifying the Blink style resolution
> code by rem
On 3/2/2014 4:02 PM, Tim wrote:
> That would be a great reason to move to Chrome.
>
> NO THANK YOU
To point out the obvious, your reply is in response to Asa pointing out
that Blink is removing this feature, which means it will no longer exist
in Chrome, therefore your statement makes no sense.
-
12 matches
Mail list logo
