Hey folks! Glad to see that there's interest in this API from Mozilla. :)
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 12 Mar 2016 7:28 PM, "Anne van Kesteren" wrote:
> > It should be identical to password manager integration.
>
> But it is not, though I suppose that a password
Hi everyone,
Here's the list of new issues found and filed by the Desktop Release QA
team last week, *March 07 - March 11* (week 10).
Additional details on the team's priorities last week, as well as the
plans for the current week are available at:
https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/D
On 13/03/2016 09:22, Kyle Huey wrote:
> Much of the "disease" you see is simply support for DOM worker threads,
> because every runnable that can run on those threads must be
> cancelable. Workers do not guarantee one of the invariants that other
> XPCOM threads do: that every runnable is eventual
My understanding is that the reason people stick to 10.6 is because
of Rosetta[1] which offers PowerPC compatibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software)
Chrome is dropping support for these platforms so it seems like an
opportunity to pick up some
Mike Hommey wrote on 11.03.2016 01:52:
>> Why can't we just not ship e10s to these users? We have a number of other
>> populations we're not shipping to, at least for now.
>
> This is actually a sensible option.
> A not-quite top-notch but up-to-date Firefox is still better than old
> versions o
I don't think it's entirely unfair -- both sets of numbers have their
place. OS X is an important platform, but it's also true that these older
OS X releases represent a tiny portion of our overall userbase.
For a few more data points...
Back in Firefox 16 when we dropped 10.5 -- another long-liv
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 04:28:50PM -0800, Terrence Cole wrote:
> We've had this conversation several times in the last few years and I think
> I've finally figured out why it has always felt subtly wrong.
>
> Our share of users on older platforms is disproportionally high compared to
> the market
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Anthony Jones wrote:
> My understanding is that the reason people stick to 10.6 is because of
> Rosetta[1] which offers PowerPC compatibility.
I have a laptop on 10.6. The hardware can theoretically support newer
OS X versions, and I've upgraded it, but newer OS X
On 9/8/15 3:21 PM, Luke Wagner wrote:
On a more technical detail: WebKit and Chromium have both shipped,
returning the number of logical processors where WebKit additionally
clamps to 2 (on iOS) or 8 (otherwise) [6] which is explicitly allowed
by WHATWG text [7]. I would argue for not clamping (
Hello from Platform Engineering Operations! Once a month we highlight
one of our projects to help the Mozilla community discover a useful tool
or an interesting contribution opportunity.
This month’s project is Perfherder!
What is Perfherder?
Perfherder is a generic system for visualizing a
On 9/8/15 3:21 PM, Luke Wagner wrote:
On a more technical detail: WebKit and Chromium have both shipped,
returning the number of logical processors where WebKit additionally
clamps to 2 (on iOS) or 8 (otherwise) [6] which is explicitly allowed
by WHATWG text [7]. I would argue for not clamping (
On 3/12/2016 7:19 PM, Gabor Krizsanits wrote:
Seems like a tough decision for such a short time... There were some great
points on both sides so far, but I'm missing the math. To evaluate the
cost/benefit for a decision like this we should be able to estimate how
much engineering time does it
We've got two outstanding bugs (
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1231320 and
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1174263), and so are
postponing this for at least a week. I will give an update this Friday if
we're able to set a date for the switch over.
Sorry for the noise!
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Benjamin Smedberg
wrote:
>
>
> On 3/12/2016 7:19 PM, Gabor Krizsanits wrote:
>
>>
>> Seems like a tough decision for such a short time... There were some
>> great
>> points on both sides so far, but I'm missing the math. To evaluate the
>> cost/benefit for a deci
I don't think that there was any misunderstanding in what it is that
is being proposed, just disagreement about cost-benefit.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Mike West wrote:
> Websites use passwords today. While I agree that we can and should be
> working on something better, I don't think that
Hi,
Following our official move off autoconf, the core build team is faced
with having to convert more than 17k lines of shell+m4. A large part of
those are to support Tier-3 platforms such as Solaris, HPUX, AIX, etc.,
with compilers that are not MSVC, GCC or clang (e.g. SunPro, XL C++...).
To sim
On 2016-03-14 3:23 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 9/8/15 3:21 PM, Luke Wagner wrote:
>> On a more technical detail: WebKit and Chromium have both shipped,
>> returning the number of logical processors where WebKit additionally
>> clamps to 2 (on iOS) or 8 (otherwise) [6] which is explicitly allowed
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Ehsan Akhgari
wrote:
> On 2016-03-14 3:23 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> > On 9/8/15 3:21 PM, Luke Wagner wrote:
> >> On a more technical detail: WebKit and Chromium have both shipped,
> >> returning the number of logical processors where WebKit additionally
> >> clam
On 3/14/16 5:30 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
I brought this up in an in person meeting about this a while ago. It
seems pretty hard to justify returning a number more than our per-origin
worker limit. To be clear, this will be a clamping different to what
WebKit does.
OK. So my current plan is t
* Summary: This has been discussed a few times already, but basically
the proposal is to expose the number of "processors" to web sites
directly. This means logical processors, in our implementation, so a
hypethreaded core counts as 2 processors.
The API will be a "hardwareConcurrency" proper
On 2016-03-10 12:07 PM, Ben Kelly wrote:
I believe Matthew Noorenberghe had some concerns about the necessity of the
API given requestAutocomplete:
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/blink-dev/7ouLjWzcjb0/s7aZHGnlAwAJ
https://github.com/w3c/webappsec-credential-management/is
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 12:26:21 AM UTC-4, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> * Link to standard: You're funny. People don't bother to put stuff into
> actual specs anymore. The closest we have is
> https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/NavigatorCores which does at least have
> some IDL and some discussion a
On 3/15/16 12:59 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
Filed https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/879; should be able to have it in
the spec by sometime tomorrow.
Thank you. That's a lot more useful than me snarking, for sure.
-Boris
___
dev-platform maili
On 2016-03-14 2:02 AM, Mike West wrote:
Hey folks! Glad to see that there's interest in this API from Mozilla. :)
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
On 12 Mar 2016 7:28 PM, "Anne van Kesteren" wrote:
It should be identical to password manager integration.
But it is no
24 matches
Mail list logo
