Re: WebUSB

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > 1) What I suggested: Whitelist vendor origins for access to their devices > and have vendor-hosted pages ("Web drivers"?) expose "safe" API to > third-party applications. > 2) Design a permissions API that one way or

Re: Intent to ship: referrerpolicy attribute

I think our implementation still has the problem that specifying referrerpolicy="none-when-downgrade" on an element has no effect. This is because the ReferrerPolicy enum uses the same value for RP_Unset, RP_Default and RP_No_Referrer_When_Downgrade. In general, that enum is a mess :( Would be

Re: When the beta version of firefox with e10s would be released?

On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 4:57:28 PM UTC+8, Dave Townsend wrote: > The developer edition already ships with e10s so you can test against that. Indeed, I am looking for more stable version > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Yonggang Luo wrote: > > I am looking for

Re: When the beta version of firefox with e10s would be released?

The developer edition already ships with e10s so you can test against that. On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Yonggang Luo wrote: > I am looking for it to developing mutli-process based firefox addons/apps > ___ > dev-platform

Re: Dan Stillman's concerns about Extension Signing

On 11/30/15 1:53 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2015-11-30 10:29 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote: >> Could we perhaps organize a MozLando workshop to discuss add-ons >> security? > > I think you need to reach out to the add-ons team. I was not involved > in any of the design process; I just

Re: When the beta version of firefox with e10s would be released?

On 12/03/2015 01:32 AM, Yonggang Luo wrote: I am looking for it to developing mutli-process based firefox addons/apps I forget the bug number, but I understand multi-process was turned on for 7.5% of beta users with the release of 43.0b8. Check Troubleshooting Information and if you see

Re: When the beta version of firefox with e10s would be released?

On 03.12.2015 12:55, Yonggang Luo wrote: > On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 4:57:28 PM UTC+8, Dave Townsend wrote: >> The developer edition already ships with e10s so you can test against that. > Indeed, I am looking for more stable version I use Developer Edition (aurora) for many years now and

Re: When the beta version of firefox with e10s would be released?

Le 03/12/2015 14:14, WaltS48 a écrit : > On 12/03/2015 01:32 AM, Yonggang Luo wrote: >> I am looking for it to developing mutli-process based firefox addons/apps >> > > I forget the bug number, but I understand multi-process was turned on for > 7.5% of beta users with the release of 43.0b8. Nope,

Re: Intent to implement and ship: FIDO U2F API

On 12/02/2015 11:37 PM, Frederic Martin wrote: As I said in the other email, I don't understand how this could be implemented when the spec has left the >key piece undefined, as far as I see. You are completely right ! For now, FIDO 2 is currently being written (far far far from finished)

Re: SPS Profiles are now captured for entire subprocess lifetime

\o/ Does this get us all the way to "profile talos runs with e10s enabled", or are there still pieces missing for that? IIRC this set of patches was a prerequisite for being able to do that. On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Mike Conley wrote: > Just a heads up that there

SPS Profiles are now captured for entire subprocess lifetime

Just a heads up that there have been recent developments with regards to gathering SPS profiles from multiple processes. Bug 1103094[1] recently landed in mozilla-central, which makes it so that if a subprocess starts up _after_ profiling has already been started in the parent, then the

Transitioning from FHR to Telemetry

TL;DR: The old FHR system is going away, use Telemetry. We have been working on migrating the FHR data sources to Telemetry for a while now, but realized there has been no proper notice going around so far. As of Firefox 43, we have disabled FHR upload on Desktop. Instead we are now collecting