Hi all,
We wanted to let you know about new data collection that we will be doing
for Firefox Hello starting with FF46 launch on April 19th, and the steps we
took to prevent it from collecting personal identification. We want to
collect more data about the websites that people share with Hello, t
Hi,
It's very concerning to me that you have not answered the obvious
question: what domains are collected? All of the ones visited while the
browser is running? The ones visited while Hello is open? The ones
visited while shared through Hello? What about the ones that someone
shared with you
On 04/04/2016 10:01, Romain Testard wrote:
Implementation bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1211542
Because this bug does not link to it: where is the bug for the privacy
review of this collection? Judging by the people you CC'd I assume you
got one, but where is it?
~ Gijs
Thank you. Maybe the documentation at
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Adding_a_new_style_property
should be updated to include a section about aliases
04.04.2016, 01:11, "L. David Baron" :
> On Monday 2016-04-04 00:52 +0100, a...@imgland.xyz wrote:
>> How exactly would I go aro
This isn't technically about the data collection but it would be better if
there was some sort of api that web developers could implement on sites like
games so instead of regular chat things like co-op and game events could be
streamlined into Hello itself
04.04.2016, 10:02, "Romain Testard" :
The privacy review bug is
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1261467.
More details added below.
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Gijs Kruitbosch
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's very concerning to me that you have not answered the obvious
> question: what domains are collected? All of the ones vi
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote:
> Eric Rescorla writes:
>
> > I don't believe I am asking for this, just auto-squash on submit. I
> > certainly understand if it's your position that you have higher
> priorities,
> > that's fine, but it's not fine to remove the ability to do
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016, at 09:09 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Saturday 2016-04-02 18:51 -0300, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > 1. I write a bunch of code, committing along the way, so I have a lot of
> > commits named "Checkpoint" and "Fix bug" and the like.
> > 2. When it works, I push the code up to the
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 11:09 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Saturday 2016-04-02 18:51 -0300, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > 1. I write a bunch of code, committing along the way, so I have a lot of
> > commits named "Checkpoint" and "Fix bug" and the like.
> > 2. When it works, I push the code up to the
My understanding is shipping e10s is the top priority, so I believe that
implies running tests there is (slightly) favoured.
But I like your idea for a dual mode. I'm on the fence whether it would
be a good default or not as it will double the time to run tests
locally, and many people likely don
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Blair McBride wrote:
> Default options imply the default is somehow favoured over the
> non-default. Which, for this, makes me wonder: Is getting tests passing on
> non-e10s less important now?
>
Fennec doesn't use e10s, so at least for tests that cover both desk
Hi everyone,
Here's the list of new issues found and filed by the Desktop Release QA
team last week, *March 28 - April 01* (week 13).
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 04/04/16 09:37 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Blair McBride wrote:
Default options imply the default is somehow favoured over the
non-default. Which, for this, makes me wonder: Is getting tests passing on
non-e10s less important now?
Fennec doesn't use e10s, so
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:09 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Saturday 2016-04-02 18:51 -0300, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > 1. I write a bunch of code, committing along the way, so I have a lot of
> > commits named "Checkpoint" and "Fix bug" and the like.
> > 2. When it works, I push the code up to the
It also seems like you haven't explored other alternatives to get the data
you are after, have some theories around what results you might expect, and
what possible out comes will be pursed once you get the data.
Have you looked at other studies like this and many more that tell about
general brow
I agree with chofmann in that a simple survey request when users open Hello
would probably work since Mozilla is trusted by alot of people.
04.04.2016, 16:22, "Chris Hofmann" :
> It also seems like you haven't explored other alternatives to get the data
> you are after, have some theories around
This change was just made (we delayed because we didn't want to take
extra risks on a Friday afternoon).
A GPG signed document detailing the current keys is available at
https://hg.mozilla.org/hgcustom/version-control-tools/raw-file/tip/docs/vcs-server-info.asc
On 3/31/16 2:39 PM, Gregory Szorc w
On 04/04/2016 11:01, Romain Testard wrote:
The privacy review bug is
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1261467.
More details added below.
See response at the bottom.
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Gijs Kruitbosch
wrote:
On 04/04/2016 10:01, Romain Testard wrote:
We would
I don't know much about Mozilla's privacy but in my opinion feel the need to
immediately remove it from Firefox and push a new beta build
04.04.2016, 16:45, "Gijs Kruitbosch" :
> On 04/04/2016 11:01, Romain Testard wrote:
>> The privacy review bug is
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi
We also changed the SSH server config to only support the "modern" set of
ciphers, MACs, algorithms, etc from
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Guidelines/OpenSSH#Modern. If you are
running an old SSH client, it may not be able to connect.
If you encounter problems connecting, complain in #vcs wit
Hello,
What information do you want, Milan?
Christine
From: Lawrence Mandel
Date: Friday, Apr 1, 2016 11:05 AM
To: C Reed
Cc: dev-platform , "Sreckovic, Milan"
Subject: Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:48 AM, wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 20
On 01/04/16 15:51, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Bug status is currently, IMHO, completely misused and thus useless:
> - people with editbug capability file as NEW by default. Why should a bug
> I file in a component I'm not working on (because I noticed a bug
> in Firefox) be NEW?
> - there is a long t
On 04/03/2016 06:09 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Saturday 2016-04-02 18:51 -0300, Eric Rescorla wrote:
1. I write a bunch of code, committing along the way, so I have a lot of
commits named "Checkpoint" and "Fix bug" and the like.
2. When it works, I push the code up to the review system for rev
Re-ping on this thread. It would be really useful to have a decision
one way or the other for figuring out exactly how a C++11 STL on OS X
is going to work.
-Nathan
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Ralph Giles wrote:
> Discussion seems to have wound down. Is there a decision on this?
>
> -r
>
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch
wrote:
It also seems like you filed the privacy review after the functionality was
> implemented and is now shipping, which per
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Privacy/Reviews seems like it is too late to
> incorporate meaningful feedback. I'm not on the
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016, at 12:46 PM, Steve Fink wrote:
> I should clarify that by "non-mq", I really mean using mutable-history
> aka evolve. And yes, my workflow does depend on some extensions,
> including some local stuff that I haven't cleaned up enough to publish.
> (As does my mq workflow; I h
Doesn't hombrew provide a version of g++ that includes c++11
04.04.2016, 18:12, "Nathan Froyd" :
> Re-ping on this thread. It would be really useful to have a decision
> one way or the other for figuring out exactly how a C++11 STL on OS X
> is going to work.
>
> -Nathan
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 a
> On Apr 3, 2016, at 18:09, L. David Baron wrote:
>
>> On Saturday 2016-04-02 18:51 -0300, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> 1. I write a bunch of code, committing along the way, so I have a lot of
>> commits named "Checkpoint" and "Fix bug" and the like.
>> 2. When it works, I push the code up to the re
On 04/04/2016 16:49, a...@imgland.xyz wrote:
I don't know much about Mozilla's privacy but in my opinion feel the
need to immediately remove it from Firefox and push a new beta build
I can understand your concern, however, please understand that this
logging functionality is currently disabled
On 04/04/2016 10:33 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016, at 12:46 PM, Steve Fink wrote:
I should clarify that by "non-mq", I really mean using mutable-history
aka evolve. And yes, my workflow does depend on some extensions,
including some local stuff that I haven't cleaned up enough to
> On Apr 4, 2016, at 10:33, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016, at 12:46 PM, Steve Fink wrote:
>> I should clarify that by "non-mq", I really mean using mutable-history
>> aka evolve. And yes, my workflow does depend on some extensions,
>> including some local stuff that I haven't
However it is concerning to have code in an Open source project that is1.Mostly undocumented2.Could be confusing to privacy-aware users3.Harvests data without proper privacy notices4.Has been added prematurely without proper documentation and serves no purpose like say, dom.webcomponents.enabled ,
As part of this, SSH DSA keys were no longer being accepted by the server.
However, there is no easy way for most non-MoCo contributors to change
their SSH keys, whereas MoCo users and communitiy members with LDAP
accounts can (and should!) use login.mozilla.com to update their keys. So a
bunch of
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Gijs Kruitbosch
wrote:
> On 04/04/2016 11:01, Romain Testard wrote:
>
>> The privacy review bug is
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1261467.
>> More details added below.
>>
>
> See response at the bottom.
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Gijs Kr
On 2016-04-04 10:07 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:09 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>
>> On Saturday 2016-04-02 18:51 -0300, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>> 1. I write a bunch of code, committing along the way, so I have a lot of
>>> commits named "Checkpoint" and "Fix bug" and the lik
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Mark Côté wrote:
> On 2016-04-04 10:07 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:09 PM, L. David Baron
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday 2016-04-02 18:51 -0300, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >>> 1. I write a bunch of code, committing along the way, so I have a l
On 04/04/2016 23:52, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> We also changed the SSH server config to only support the "modern" set of
> ciphers, MACs, algorithms, etc from
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Guidelines/OpenSSH#Modern. If you are
> running an old SSH client, it may not be able to connect.
>
> If y
On 2016-04-04 8:41 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Mark Côté wrote:
>> To answer the original question, though, at this time we have no plans
>> to completely do away with the squashed-commit view. However, in the
>> interests of ensuring that the commits that will land
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Ian Bicking wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Gijs Kruitbosch >
> wrote:
>
> I put some comments about data bias against international users
and the .edu domains and possible data leaks that could result directly in
the bug.
> >
> > We looked into this
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Mark Côté wrote:
> On 2016-04-04 8:41 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Mark Côté wrote:
> >> To answer the original question, though, at this time we have no plans
> >> to completely do away with the squashed-commit view. However, in
Op 5-4-2016 om 3:09 schreef Philip Chee:
> On 04/04/2016 23:52, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>> We also changed the SSH server config to only support the "modern" set of
>> ciphers, MACs, algorithms, etc from
>> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Guidelines/OpenSSH#Modern. If you are
>> running an old SSH c
41 matches
Mail list logo
