Re: Just Autoland It

2016-01-29 Thread Andrew Halberstadt
On 28/01/16 06:31 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote: I'd like to thank everyone for the feedback in this thread. However, the thread has grown quite long and has detoured from its original subject. Speaking on behalf of

Re: Just Autoland It

2016-01-29 Thread Eric Rescorla
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Andrew Halberstadt < ahalberst...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 28/01/16 06:31 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Gregory Szorc >> wrote: >> >> I'd like to thank everyone for the feedback in this thread. However, the

Re: Just Autoland It

2016-01-29 Thread Mark Côté
On 2016-01-29 10:27 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Andrew Halberstadt < > ahalberst...@mozilla.com> wrote: > >> On 28/01/16 06:31 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Gregory Szorc >>> wrote: >>> >>> I'd like to thank

Re: Just Autoland It

2016-01-29 Thread Dave Townsend
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Andrew Halberstadt < > ahalberst...@mozilla.com> wrote: > >> On 28/01/16 06:31 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Gregory Szorc >>> wrote:

Re: Just Autoland It

2016-01-29 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 1/29/16 10:42 AM, Mike Conley wrote: most of the feedback is via negativa[2] That's definitely no good, I agree. Attacking the MozReview team is also not ok, obviously. and nobody is really forcing you to use MozReview. Well, sort of. A review requester who uses Mozreview is forcing

Re: Just Autoland It

2016-01-29 Thread Mike Conley
I respect everybody talking in this thread a great deal, but I thought I might gently suggest that folks exercise a bit of empathy for what the MozReview team[1] are trying to accomplish, and how difficult that work actually is. Trying to build a tool that satisfies such a wide spectrum of

Re: Just Autoland It

2016-01-29 Thread Mike Conley
>> Since making the review requester feel crappy is not generally >> considered good, most review requestees don't push back on MozReview >> requests, even if they find it very frustrating to work with. I think >> this dynamic is at the heart of a lot of the angst about MozReview: >> people just

IPDL syntax change

2016-01-29 Thread Bill McCloskey
Hi everyone, In bug 1240871 , we changed the syntax for IPDL to require an explicit message type annotation. Previously you could write the following: FooMessage(nsString arg); and it would be an async message by default. That was a bit

Re: Just Autoland It

2016-01-29 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 1/29/16 11:18 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: This is reasonable advice for review requesters, but not for review requestees, per above. :( That said, I guess most of this thread has been from the requester point of view, not the requestee. The main dynamic here seems to be that people who

Re: Just Autoland It

2016-01-29 Thread Eric Rescorla
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Dave Townsend wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > More generally, I keep seeing comments (especially from GPS) about > > trying to push people towards some workflow that's different from the >

Re: Does SSE2 usage still need to be conditional?

2016-01-29 Thread Ashley Gullen
FWIW, the Steam Hardware Survey says 99.99% of users have SSE2 (under "other settings"): http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey On 28 January 2016 at 18:35, Henri Sivonen wrote: > It's been a while since the previous SSE2 thread. > > I have some questions: > * Does

Bug Program Next Steps

2016-01-29 Thread Emma Humphries
Bug Program Next Steps Over the last week, I’ve asked you to step up and identify developers who will be responsible for bugs triaged into their component (in Firefox, Core, Toolkit, Fennec iOS, and Fennec Android.) Why This Matters Bugs are a unit of quality we can use to see how we’re doing.

Re: Bug Program Next Steps

2016-01-29 Thread Eric Rescorla
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Kyle Huey wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Emma Humphries wrote: > >> We believe that the number of outstanding, actionable bugs is the best >> metric of code quality available, and that how this number changes over

Re: Bug Program Next Steps

2016-01-29 Thread Emma Humphries
Richard, Many components have watchers, I am grateful for that. Some components don't. We need reviews in all components so we don't lose track of bugs we must fix to avoid a point release. We're applying consistent process across all components, because we must reduce the amount of noise in

PSA: Please stop revving UUIDs when changing XPIDL interface

2016-01-29 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
(Sending this in another thread in case people didn't see my note at the end of the original thread.) The new rules are in effect for mozilla-central and the repositories that merge into it. Revving UUIDs is no longer necessary. Happy hacking! -- Ehsan

Re: Bug Program Next Steps

2016-01-29 Thread Richard Newman
> > Starting in the second quarter of this year, if you’ve taken on a > component, I’m expecting you or your team to look at the bugs which landed > in the component on a more frequent basis than a weekly triage. > In my experience, component watching adequately serves this purpose, and component

Re: Bug Program Next Steps

2016-01-29 Thread Kyle Huey
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Emma Humphries wrote: > We believe that the number of outstanding, actionable bugs is the best > metric of code quality available, and that how this number changes over > time will be a strong indicator of the evolving quality of Firefox. > Why

Re: Bug Program Next Steps

2016-01-29 Thread Gervase Markham
On 30/01/16 00:45, Emma Humphries wrote: > This is a terminal state for a NEW bug. We acknowledge the bug exists, it > affects people, but it is not important enough to warrant working on it. > The team will review and accept patches from the community for this bug > report. Without wanting to

Re: Does SSE2 usage still need to be conditional?

2016-01-29 Thread Cameron Kaiser
On 1/29/16 9:43 AM, Ashley Gullen wrote: FWIW, the Steam Hardware Survey says 99.99% of users have SSE2 (under "other settings"): http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey For that to be valid, one must assume that the population of Firefox users and Steam users are sufficiently similar. I don't

Re: Does SSE2 usage still need to be conditional?

2016-01-29 Thread Mike Hoye
On 2016-01-29 2:05 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote: On 1/29/16 9:43 AM, Ashley Gullen wrote: FWIW, the Steam Hardware Survey says 99.99% of users have SSE2 (under "other settings"): http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey For that to be valid, one must assume that the population of Firefox users and

Re: Does SSE2 usage still need to be conditional?

2016-01-29 Thread Kartikaya Gupta
I also want to highlight the thing at the end of the gist linked above - the majority of the non-SSE2 population are on 43.0.4. That is, they're keeping up-to-date, and would likely be affected by this more than somebody stranded on an old version. On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Chris H-C

Re: Does SSE2 usage still need to be conditional?

2016-01-29 Thread Chris H-C
tl;dr - Around 99.5% of Firefox Desktop clients on release channel represented by (a 20% sample of) pings submitted by on January 21, 2016 had "hasSSE2" detected. Here's the analysis and results on github. Please feel free to check my work: https://gist.github.com/chutten/4959c873d7fbbec0785a

Re: Just Autoland It

2016-01-29 Thread Steve Fink
On 01/29/2016 08:37 AM, Mike Conley wrote: Since making the review requester feel crappy is not generally considered good, most review requestees don't push back on MozReview requests, even if they find it very frustrating to work with. I think this dynamic is at the heart of a lot of the angst