Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Milan Sreckovic wrote: > In general, is “this is how it worked with SVGMatrix” one of the design > principles? > > I was hoping this would be the time matrix rotate() method goes to > radians, like the canvas rotate, and unlike SVGMatrix version that takes > degree

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > > 2014-06-04 20:28 GMT-04:00 Cameron McCormack : > > On 05/06/14 07:20, Milan Sreckovic wrote: >> >>> In general, is “this is how it worked with SVGMatrix” one of the >>> design principles? >>> >>> I was hoping this would be the time matri

Re: Standardized assertion methods

On 6/4/14, 11:30 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote: - benefits to shared API/implementation seem uncontroversial Agreed. - specifically, consistency between mochitest/SimpleTest-based harnesses (mochitest-plain/mochitest-chrome/mochitest-browser) and xpcshell tests is what we care about primarily. I don'

Re: bugzilla can now show bugs that have been updated since you last visited them

On 04/06/2014 07:34, Byron Jones wrote: thanks to dylan's work on bug 489028, bugzilla now tracks when you view a bug, allowing you to search for bugs which have been updated since you last visited them. see my blog post for more details: http://wp.me/p1JUqW-9M Hrm. But this includes "trivial

Re: bugzilla can now show bugs that have been updated since you last visited them

Byron Jones wrote: thanks to dylan's work on bug 489028, bugzilla now tracks when you view a bug, allowing you to search for bugs which have been updated since you last visited them. I shared a basic search which I call "Unseen Changes". I was slightly disappointed that I couldn't search for

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Jun 5, 2014, at 2:47 AM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > > 2014-06-04 20:28 GMT-04:00 Cameron McCormack : > On 05/06/14 07:20, Milan Sreckovic wrote: > In general, is “this is how it worked with SVGMatrix” one of the > design principles? > > I was hoping this would be the time matrix rotate() m

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Jun 5, 2014, at 2:28 AM, Cameron McCormack wrote: > On 05/06/14 07:20, Milan Sreckovic wrote: >> In general, is “this is how it worked with SVGMatrix” one of the >> design principles? >> >> I was hoping this would be the time matrix rotate() method goes to >> radians, like the canvas rotate,

Re: Standardized assertion methods

I still don't believe either of you :) Obviously my position isn't "let's make it it more frustrating to write tests"; I think you're both vastly overstating the costs of switching to a slightly different, similar API. Any change is initially jarring, but I just don't buy that this change would cau

Re: unused non-[scriptable] XPIDL interfaces no longer shipped with Firefox

So IIUC this means that script can't call any methods on these interfaces, so the only remaining users could be binary extension components and those within libxul itself. So if we're willing to ignore the former, and eliminate the latter, then we can remove these interfaces entirely? Or do we need

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

2014-06-04 20:28 GMT-04:00 Cameron McCormack : > On 05/06/14 07:20, Milan Sreckovic wrote: > >> In general, is “this is how it worked with SVGMatrix” one of the >> design principles? >> >> I was hoping this would be the time matrix rotate() method goes to >> radians, like the canvas rotate, and un

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On 05/06/14 07:20, Milan Sreckovic wrote: In general, is “this is how it worked with SVGMatrix” one of the design principles? I was hoping this would be the time matrix rotate() method goes to radians, like the canvas rotate, and unlike SVGMatrix version that takes degrees... By the way, in th

Re: Style guide clarity on C++-isms

I've added the "tiny methods can be written in a single line" rule. Search for "TinyFunction" and "LargerFunction" at https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Developer_guide/Coding_Style#Classes Nick ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@li

Re: Announcing early any changes on the try server and the exact build envs

On 06/03/2014 04:25 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > As for warning-as-errors, it's not meant to be used for local builds, > because different compilers don't come with the same set of warnings. I think that might be putting it a bit too strongly. Warnings-as-errors absolutely *is* meant to be used with

Re: Announcing early any changes on the try server and the exact build envs

On 06/03/2014 07:32 AM, Gabor Krizsanits wrote: > Currently m-c does not build with gcc 4.6 on ubuntu because something > similar. After > updating to 4.8 I got some warning in webrtc code, so I had to turn off > warning-as-errors. FWIW, you can work around that with "ac_add_options --disable-we

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

In general, is “this is how it worked with SVGMatrix” one of the design principles? I was hoping this would be the time matrix rotate() method goes to radians, like the canvas rotate, and unlike SVGMatrix version that takes degrees... -- - Milan On Jun 3, 2014, at 18:26 , Rik Cabanier wrote:

Re: Google announces Chrome builds for Win64

On 6/4/14, 10:32 AM, Brian Smith wrote: Does it make sense to ship 64-bit Firefox before shipping mutli-process/sandboxed Firefox? I worry that 64-bit Firefox will be more memory hungry than 32-bit Firefox and if it lands first then it will be harder to land multi-process Firefox which is also

Re: unused non-[scriptable] XPIDL interfaces no longer shipped with Firefox

On 2014-06-04, 4:45 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote: Bug 996061 has now landed on inbound. Prior to this bug, we included non-[scriptable] XPIDL interfaces into the internal typelibs shipped with Firefox. This is no longer the case: interfaces that are not marked [scriptable] and are not referenced b

unused non-[scriptable] XPIDL interfaces no longer shipped with Firefox

Bug 996061 has now landed on inbound. Prior to this bug, we included non-[scriptable] XPIDL interfaces into the internal typelibs shipped with Firefox. This is no longer the case: interfaces that are not marked [scriptable] and are not referenced by other [scriptable] interfaces will be remov

Re: bugzilla can now show bugs that have been updated since you last visited them

Filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1020558 On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2014-06-04, 3:58 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Bobby Holley > > wrote: >> >> >> Holy moly this is incredible! So

Re: bugzilla can now show bugs that have been updated since you last visited them

On 2014-06-04, 3:58 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Bobby Holley mailto:bobbyhol...@gmail.com>> wrote: Holy moly this is incredible! So this means that I can stop reading bugmail, and rely entirely on the dashboard with no loss of information? I think that is t

Re: bugzilla can now show bugs that have been updated since you last visited them

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Bobby Holley wrote: > > Holy moly this is incredible! So this means that I can stop reading > bugmail, and rely entirely on the dashboard with no loss of information? > Hm, seems like this isn't really the case. This feature only helps for bugs that I've already v

Re: Google announces Chrome builds for Win64

> - Add-ons are going to break in both projects. We need to take the developer community's pain into consideration. What is the problem with addons and win64, binary addons? For e10s JS-only addons are problematic as well, so the level of problems we can expect here are quite different. I don't th

Re: Standardized assertion methods

On 6/4/14, 2:21 PM, James Graham wrote: * They encourage the use of deepEqual which has underdefined semantics, particularly in the case of objects that contain cycles (it looks like Assert.jsm goes into an infinite loop in this case, but I may have misread the code). You didn't misread the cod

Re: Standardized assertion methods

On 04/06/14 18:42, Mike de Boer wrote: > On 04 Jun 2014, at 19:20, Ehsan Akhgari > wrote: > >> On 2014-06-04, 5:45 AM, Mike de Boer wrote: >>> On 04 Jun 2014, at 00:33, James Graham >>> wrote: >>> On 03/06/14 20:34, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > I'm arguing against Assert.jsm using the

Re: Standardized assertion methods

On 6/4/14, 1:56 PM, Ted Mielczarek wrote: The inconsistency between our various test harnesses makes it harder than necessary to write different types of tests. Yes, agreed. RE: the discussion of testharness.js etc, I think those are even farther afield, since the testing model there is much

Re: Google announces Chrome builds for Win64

Great point Brian, I should've mentioned the relation to E10S and sandboxing because as you suggest, it's complicated. - E10S and sandboxing help 32 bit users as well as 64 and arguably offer the most immediate relief to the most users experiencing stability issues. Most of the folks I spoke wi

Re: Standardized assertion methods

On 6/4/14, 1:42 PM, Mike de Boer wrote: I wasn’t implying that they’re broken at all, it’s just that James was hinting at that. Our existing testing frameworks are broken in terms of the goals of the testharness framework, as far as I understand. For example, one of the primary goals of tes

Re: Standardized assertion methods

On 2014-06-04, 1:42 PM, Mike de Boer wrote: On 04 Jun 2014, at 19:20, Ehsan Akhgari mailto:ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 2014-06-04, 5:45 AM, Mike de Boer wrote: On 04 Jun 2014, at 00:33, James Graham mailto:ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk>> wrote: On 03/06/14 20:34, Boris Zbarsky wrote: I'm

Re: Standardized assertion methods

On 6/4/2014 1:20 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > The other thing that you need to note is that there is years of > experience behind each one of our test frameworks, and there are > probably several hundred thousand lines of code written against any of > them. And there are many many people who have be

Re: Standardized assertion methods

On 04 Jun 2014, at 19:20, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2014-06-04, 5:45 AM, Mike de Boer wrote: >> On 04 Jun 2014, at 00:33, James Graham wrote: >> >>> On 03/06/14 20:34, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >>> I'm arguing against Assert.jsm using the commonjs API names. >>> >>> And I am arguing against u

Re: Google announces Chrome builds for Win64

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Brian Smith wrote: > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Chris Peterson > wrote: > > > http://blog.chromium.org/2014/06/try-out-new-64-bit-windows- > > canary-and.html > > > > What is the status of Firefox builds for Win64? When Mozilla releases > > Win64 builds (ag

Re: Google announces Chrome builds for Win64

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Chris Peterson wrote: > http://blog.chromium.org/2014/06/try-out-new-64-bit-windows- > canary-and.html > > What is the status of Firefox builds for Win64? When Mozilla releases > Win64 builds (again), we'll be seen as reacting to Google when we've > actually been

Re: Standardized assertion methods

On 2014-06-04, 5:45 AM, Mike de Boer wrote: On 04 Jun 2014, at 00:33, James Graham wrote: On 03/06/14 20:34, Boris Zbarsky wrote: I'm arguing against Assert.jsm using the commonjs API names. And I am arguing against using the CommonJS semantics. If we are adding new assertions it shouldn't

Re: bugzilla can now show bugs that have been updated since you last visited them

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2014-06-04, 2:34 AM, Byron Jones wrote: > >> thanks to dylan's work on bug 489028, bugzilla now tracks when you view >> a bug, allowing you to search for bugs which have been updated since you >> last visited them. >> >> see my blog post f

Re: bugzilla can now show bugs that have been updated since you last visited them

On 2014-06-04, 2:34 AM, Byron Jones wrote: thanks to dylan's work on bug 489028, bugzilla now tracks when you view a bug, allowing you to search for bugs which have been updated since you last visited them. see my blog post for more details: http://wp.me/p1JUqW-9M This is so amazing. As a lon

Re: bugzilla can now show bugs that have been updated since you last visited them

Sylvestre Ledru wrote: Just a question, in a custom search, the "Last Visit" shows 2014-06-04 05:47:42 instead of "more than an hour ago". yes - relative dates are not used in many places in bugzilla. the most visible place where they are used is the dashboard, which is where i took my screen

Re: Google announces Chrome builds for Win64

Hi folks. I should introduce myself first. I'm a new product manager working on Firefox for Desktop. I've been working on an assessment of launching 64 bit for about 6 weeks. In that time, I've had conversations with representatives from every engineering and QA team whose work would be required

Re: bugzilla can now show bugs that have been updated since you last visited them

On 04/06/2014 08:34, Byron Jones wrote: > thanks to dylan's work on bug 489028, bugzilla now tracks when you view > a bug, allowing you to search for bugs which have been updated since you > last visited them. > > see my blog post for more details: http://wp.me/p1JUqW-9M > Excellent. Thanks. Just

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Till Schneidereit < > t...@tillschneidereit.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: >> >>> > Actually, inverse() is already spec'd to throw if the inversion fails. >>> In >>>

Re: bugzilla can now show bugs that have been updated since you last visited them

That sounds quite useful. Thanks, David On 04/06/14 08:34, Byron Jones wrote: > thanks to dylan's work on bug 489028, bugzilla now tracks when you view > a bug, allowing you to search for bugs which have been updated since you > last visited them. > > see my blog post for more details: http://w

Re: bugzilla can now show bugs that have been updated since you last visited them

On 2014-06-04, 2:34 AM, Byron Jones wrote: thanks to dylan's work on bug 489028, bugzilla now tracks when you view a bug, allowing you to search for bugs which have been updated since you last visited them. This is great work. Thank you, Dylan! - mhoye

Re: Standardized assertion methods

On 04 Jun 2014, at 00:33, James Graham wrote: > On 03/06/14 20:34, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > >> I'm arguing against Assert.jsm using the commonjs API names. > > And I am arguing against using the CommonJS semantics. If we are adding > new assertions it shouldn't be ones that encourage broken tests

Re: Policing dead/zombie code in m-c

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Trevor Saunders wrote: > On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 12:08:52PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: >> On 2014-06-03, 5:57 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> >On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote: >> >>Assuming that ICU is already compiled with the moral equivalent of

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

Dirk Schulze wrote: There was an argument that: if (matrix.isInvertible()) matrix.invert(); would force UAs to compute the determinant twice. Actually, UAs can be very smart about that. The determinant is a simple double. It can be stored and invalidated as needed internally. (If it

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Jun 4, 2014, at 12:42 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Robert O'Callahan > wrote: > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > That would require try/catch around all the "invert()" calls. This is ugly > but more importantly, it will significan