On 9/9/2012 2:03 PM, Justin Lebar wrote:
So, 2.6 or 2.7?
I'm totally in favor of using the latest and greatest that's available.
Me too. I'm in favor of putting all the automation (build & test) on 2.7.3:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=724191
Clint
On 12-09-13 6:47 PM, David Humphrey wrote:
On 12-09-13 6:40 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 12-09-13 6:30 PM, David Humphrey wrote:
Thanks for your work, Ehsan, it's really appreciated.
Can we file a bug on this and not have it be something literally off the
side of your desk? Too many of us depe
> * This repo does not have an inbound branch like my mirror did, so if you
> want a commit which is on mozilla-inbound but not on mozilla-central yet, I
> guess you should wait until it gets merged to mozilla-central.
Although that repository doesn't have an inbound branch, there is a
separate in
On 12-09-13 6:40 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 12-09-13 6:30 PM, David Humphrey wrote:
Thanks for your work, Ehsan, it's really appreciated.
Can we file a bug on this and not have it be something literally off the
side of your desk? Too many of us depend on it now to not see this
through, and if
On 12-09-13 6:30 PM, David Humphrey wrote:
Thanks for your work, Ehsan, it's really appreciated.
Can we file a bug on this and not have it be something literally off the
side of your desk? Too many of us depend on it now to not see this
through, and if you can't get it, we need to find another
Thanks for your work, Ehsan, it's really appreciated.
Can we file a bug on this and not have it be something literally off the
side of your desk? Too many of us depend on it now to not see this
through, and if you can't get it, we need to find another solution soon.
Dave
On 12-09-13 6:24 PM
On 12-09-13 6:18 PM, Ralph Giles wrote:
* This repo is created by RelEng by a direct conversion of the mercurial
repository to git, which means that there is no CVS history for you to use.
You you understand why this repo doesn't have the same problem with the
ionmonkey merge?
I'm reasonably
On 12-09-13 2:49 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> Sad news everyone. Since Tuesday night I have been trying to fix the
> repository using almost anything that came to my mind, from trying to
> recreate the missing commits manually one by one to updating hg and hg-git,
> trying to reconvert only parts of
Sad news everyone. Since Tuesday night I have been trying to fix the
repository using almost anything that came to my mind, from trying to
recreate the missing commits manually one by one to updating hg and hg-git,
trying to reconvert only parts of the IonMonkey merge to narrow down the
problem, a
On 13/09/12 07:27, Jonas Sicking wrote:
* Some content providers strike deals with hardware manufacturers
which allow devices made by the manufacturer to access content for
free. One way that this is implemented is by looking for tokens in UA
strings and serve content based on this. This is obvio
2012/9/13 Nicholas Nethercote :
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> * Some content providers strike deals with hardware manufacturers
>> which allow devices made by the manufacturer to access content for
>> free. One way that this is implemented is by looking for tokens i
On 09/13/12 02:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> For Firefox OS, we are getting requests from partners to add tokens to
> the UA string which identify the hardware device on which Firefox OS
> is running.
I am very far from an expert here, but I recall during some discussions
a few years ago that spec
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> * Some content providers strike deals with hardware manufacturers
> which allow devices made by the manufacturer to access content for
> free. One way that this is implemented is by looking for tokens in UA
> strings and serve content based
> > Let me know what you think.
>
> Since Firefox OS is openly accessible to hardware vendors, wouldn't
> it
> be easy for them to override any decision made by Mozilla if they or
> their content partners would prefer it that way?
We have the ability to set the terms for use of the Firefox brand.
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Let me know what you think.
Since Firefox OS is openly accessible to hardware vendors, wouldn't it
be easy for them to override any decision made by Mozilla if they or
their content partners would prefer it that way?
Putting hardware tokens
> > Hi All,
> >
> > For Firefox OS, we are getting requests from partners to add tokens
> > to
> > the UA string which identify the hardware device on which Firefox
> > OS
> > is running.
> >
>
> During the UA discussions for Firefox for Android we explicitly
> decided not
> to do this (after much
16 matches
Mail list logo
