Re: Oculus VR support & somehwat-non-free code in the tree

1. Check in the LibOVR sources as-is, in other-licenses/oculus. Add a configure flag, maybe --disable-non-free, that disables building it. Build and ship it as normal in our builds. Should be opt-in, not opt-out. +1 Nick ___ dev-platform mailing li

Re: Oculus VR support & somehwat-non-free code in the tree

On 2014-04-14, 9:47 PM, Andreas Gal wrote: Vlad asked a specific question in the first email. Are we comfortable using another open (albeit not open enough for MPL) license on trunk while we rewrite the library? Can we compromise on trunk in order to innovate faster and only ship to GA once t

Re: Oculus VR support & somehwat-non-free code in the tree

+1 to breaking licensing dogma in favor of innovation + moving faster. On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Andreas Gal wrote: > >> Vlad asked a specific question in the first email. Are we comfortable >> using another open (albeit not open enou

Re: Oculus VR support & somehwat-non-free code in the tree

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Andreas Gal wrote: > Vlad asked a specific question in the first email. Are we comfortable > using another open (albeit not open enough for MPL) license on trunk while > we rewrite the library? Can we compromise on trunk in order to innovate > faster and only ship

Re: Oculus VR support & somehwat-non-free code in the tree

Vlad asked a specific question in the first email. Are we comfortable using another open (albeit not open enough for MPL) license on trunk while we rewrite the library? Can we compromise on trunk in order to innovate faster and only ship to GA once the code is MPL friendly via re-licensing or r

Re: Oculus VR support & somehwat-non-free code in the tree

On Monday, April 14, 2014 7:29:43 PM UTC-4, Ralph Giles wrote: > > The goal would be to remove LibOVR before we ship (or keep it in assuming > > it gets relicensed, if appropriate), and replace it with a standard "Open > > VR" library. > > Can you dlopen the sdk, so it doesn't have to be in-tree

Re: Oculus VR support & somehwat-non-free code in the tree

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 03:41:49PM -0700, Vladimir Vukicevic wrote: > Hey all, > > I have a prototype of VR display and sensor integration with the web, > along with an implementation for the Oculus VR. Despite there really > being only one vendor right now, there is a lot of interest in VR. > I'

Re: Oculus VR support & somehwat-non-free code in the tree

On 2014-04-14 3:41 PM, Vladimir Vukicevic wrote: > 2. Contact Oculus with our concerns about the license, and see if they would be willing to relicense to something more standard. We should certainly ask, and explain what the problem is for us. > The goal would be to remove LibOVR before we ship

Re: Is XPath still a thing?

On 14.04.2014 23:54, Jorge Villalobos wrote: On 4/14/14, 3:46 PM, David Burns wrote: Not from my side! David On 14/04/2014 22:41, Eric Shepherd wrote: On 2014-04-14 21:38:24 +, David Burns said: XPath is still a going concern from where I stand. Web Testing people, who use Selenium WebD

Re: Is there any replacement for Domain Policy in CAPS ( Bug 913734 )

xunxun wrote: For example, I use the policy by default on my custom build: pref("capability.policy.policynames", "pcxnojs"); pref("capability.policy.pcxnojs.sites", "http://nsclick.baidu.com";); pref("capability.policy.pcxnojs.javascript.enabled", "noAccess"); nsclick.baidu.com can cause firef

Re: Enhancing product security with CSP for internal pages

Frederik Braun wrote: A few months ago I had the idea to add a Content Security Policy (CSP) to our internal pages, like about:newtab for example. So this just applies to about: pages? -- Warning: May contain traces of nuts. ___ dev-platform mailin

Oculus VR support & somehwat-non-free code in the tree

Hey all, I have a prototype of VR display and sensor integration with the web, along with an implementation for the Oculus VR. Despite there really being only one vendor right now, there is a lot of interest in VR. I'd like to add the web and Firefox to that flurry of activity... especially g

Re: Is XPath still a thing?

On 4/14/14, 3:46 PM, David Burns wrote: > Not from my side! > > David > > On 14/04/2014 22:41, Eric Shepherd wrote: >> On 2014-04-14 21:38:24 +, David Burns said: >> >>> XPath is still a going concern from where I stand. Web Testing >>> people, who use Selenium WebDriver, use XPath extensivel

Re: Is XPath still a thing?

Not from my side! David On 14/04/2014 22:41, Eric Shepherd wrote: On 2014-04-14 21:38:24 +, David Burns said: XPath is still a going concern from where I stand. Web Testing people, who use Selenium WebDriver, use XPath extensively since they struggle to get to have testable documents. Ha

Re: Is XPath still a thing?

On 2014-04-14 21:38:24 +, David Burns said: XPath is still a going concern from where I stand. Web Testing people, who use Selenium WebDriver, use XPath extensively since they struggle to get to have testable documents. Having decent documentation for them would be awesome :) On 2014-04-

Re: Is XPath still a thing?

On 14/04/2014 22:28, Eric Shepherd wrote: I think I know the answer to this, but want to confirm: is XPath a going concern? We want to be sure of its current status before migrating its documentation to where it ought to be assuming that it is in fact something people still use. XPath is stil

Re: Is XPath still a thing?

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:28 PM, Eric Shepherd wrote: > I think I know the answer to this, but want to confirm: is XPath a going > concern? We want to be sure of its current status before migrating its > documentation to where it ought to be assuming that it is in fact something > people still us

Is XPath still a thing?

I think I know the answer to this, but want to confirm: is XPath a going concern? We want to be sure of its current status before migrating its documentation to where it ought to be assuming that it is in fact something people still use. -- Eric Shepherd Developer Documentation Lead Mozilla Bl

MemShrink Meeting - Tuesday, 15 April 2014 at 4:00pm PDT

The next MemShrink meeting will be brought to you by auto-minified javascript code in B2G chrome: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=903149 The wiki page for this meeting is at: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Performance/MemShrink Agenda: * Prioritize unprioritized MemShrink bugs. * Discu

Re: Is there any replacement for Domain Policy in CAPS ( Bug 913734 )

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:12 AM, xunxun wrote: > I want to use a configurable way like > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Midas/Security_preferences, > which can solve some strange issues on a single js, NoScript is too big for > the problem. > > For example, I use the policy by default

Re: Recommendations on source control and code review

On 4/14/14, 8:31 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 4/14/14 5:13 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: But doesn't Mercurial hide all but the first line by default in the places you'd normally look for it (e.g., log)? The normal place I'd look for the detailed message is something like https://hg.mozilla.org/mozi

Re: Is there any replacement for Domain Policy in CAPS ( Bug 913734 )

于 2014/4/15 星期二 1:57, Bobby Holley 写道: On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:38 AM, xunxun > wrote:, I noticed that Domain Policy in CAPS has been removed in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=913734, which means, we can't use the config capability.pol

Re: Is there any replacement for Domain Policy in CAPS ( Bug 913734 )

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:38 AM, xunxun wrote:, > I noticed that Domain Policy in CAPS has been removed in > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=913734, which means, we > can't use the config capability.policy after 29.0 > Correct. > Is there any easy way to replace it (about:

Is there any replacement for Domain Policy in CAPS ( Bug 913734 )

Hi, I noticed that Domain Policy in CAPS has been removed in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=913734, which means, we can't use the config capability.policy after 29.0 Is there any easy way to replace it (about:config)? ( Except installing NoScript ) Thanks. -- Bes

Re: Recommendations on source control and code review

On 04/14/2014 12:42 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote: I came across the following articles on source control and code review: * https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabflavor/article/ recommendations_on_revision_control/ * https://secure.phabri

Re: Recommendations on source control and code review

On 4/14/14 5:13 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: But doesn't Mercurial hide all but the first line by default in the places you'd normally look for it (e.g., log)? The normal place I'd look for the detailed message is something like https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/, which shows the

Re: Recommendations on source control and code review

On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote: > Very often I've found that the intended approach changes during the > life of a bug, and there is no clear summary in the bug of what > eventually was done. It is then necessary to go back through > multiple revisions of the patch and asso

Disabling b2g reftests on mozilla-aurora and m-b2g26 & m-b2g28 (was Re: Disabling b2g reftests on the minis on trunk)

Hello, This week we will be disabling a handful of tests on m-b2g26 and m-b2g28 branches so we can fully move to run b2g reftests on the EC2 instances [1] and disable the old mac minis. The need to disable tests is due to the lack of lack of resources to investigate those few tests on release bran

Re: RuntimeWarning: couldn't determine platform's TOTAL_PHYMEM warnings.warn("couldn't determine platform's TOTAL_PHYMEM", RuntimeWarning) while run ./mach build for Ubuntu 12.04 64 bit os

On Monday, April 14, 2014 4:27:07 PM UTC+5:30, himansh...@brainvire.com wrote: > Hello I android developer i just work to build Firefox android build by Step > given in This Site : > > > > https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/Fennec/Android#Explained > > > > Now let me give my system Info : > >

RuntimeWarning: couldn't determine platform's TOTAL_PHYMEM warnings.warn("couldn't determine platform's TOTAL_PHYMEM", RuntimeWarning) while run ./mach build for Ubuntu 12.04 64 bit os

Hello I android developer i just work to build Firefox android build by Step given in This Site : https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/Fennec/Android#Explained Now let me give my system Info : Ubuntu 12.04 64 Bit OS 4 GB RAM Processor :Intel(R) Core(tm) i3-2120 CPU @ 3.30GHz × 4 I follow below step

Re: Recommendations on source control and code review

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Karl Tomlinson wrote: > Very often I've found that the intended approach changes during the > life of a bug, and there is no clear summary in the bug of what > eventually was done. It is then necessary to go back through > multiple revisions of the patch and assoc

Enhancing product security with CSP for internal pages

Hi folks, For those who don't know me, I'm a Security Engineer working on Firefox OS (mostly Gaia and Gecko things). I have been pursuing a security goal for quite some time now but haven't yet announced this to throughout the project. A few months ago I had the idea to add a Content Security Pol