Re: Improving visibility of compiler warnings

2017-05-24 Thread Martin Thomson
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote: > Where does NSS do this? Cloning the NSS tree and grepping for > sign-compare turns up no disabling of -Wsign-compare, except perhaps > in XCode for gtest itself. My bad, -Wsign-compare is in -Wextra, and we don't enable

Re: Race Cache With Network experiment on Nightly

2017-05-24 Thread Eric Rescorla
What's the state of pref experiments? I thought they were not yet ready. -Ekr On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: > Is there a particular reason this is landing directly to nightly rather > than using a pref experiment? A pref experiment is going

Re: Intent to ship: SourceMap header

2017-05-24 Thread L. David Baron
On Wednesday 2017-05-17 11:14 -0700, Nick Fitzgerald wrote: > If the effort re-materializes, here's what I think should be focused on: > > * Clean up the spec text and any ambiguities it may have; make it a > "proper" standard I agree it would be good to have a somewhat more "proper" spec for

Re: Intent to ship: SourceMap header

2017-05-24 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 5/17/17 2:14 PM, Nick Fitzgerald wrote: In my experience, trying to get anyone to comment or provide feedback on source map RFCs was a huge pain, and it felt to me like nobody (other browser devtools teams, maintainers of compilers targeting JS) cared enough about source maps to get involved

View the history of line ranges on hg.mozilla.org

2017-05-24 Thread Gregory Szorc
Mercurial 4.2 (just deployed to https://hg.mozilla.org/) contains a new feature for visualizing the history of a subset of a file. Those of you who perform a lot of code archeology may find it more useful than the classical annotate/blame UI (which is based on whole files and single revisions and

Re: Intent to unship: -moz-placeholder pseudo-element and pseudo-class

2017-05-24 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 5/24/17 1:06 PM, Mike Taylor wrote: [1] Sadly, that code is already buggy in Firefox: it uses ":moz-placeholder", which doesn't parse. The thing that parses is

Re: Intent to unship: -moz-placeholder pseudo-element and pseudo-class

2017-05-24 Thread Mike Taylor
Hi CJ, On 5/23/17 10:13 PM, Ku(顧思捷)CJ wrote: > I intend to remove "-moz-placeholder" pseudo-element and pseudo-class in > bug 1300896. > > We already supported canonical version of them: > 1. "::placeholder" in bug 1069012, FF 51. > 2. ":placeholder-shown" in bug 1069015, FF 51. > > To support

Re: Race Cache With Network experiment on Nightly

2017-05-24 Thread Nicolas B. Pierron
On 05/24/2017 03:36 PM, Valentin Gosu wrote: As part of the Quantum Network initiative we are working on a project called "Race Cache With Network" (rcwn) [1]. This project changes the way the network cache works. When we detect that disk IO may be slow, we send a network request in parallel,

Race Cache With Network experiment on Nightly

2017-05-24 Thread Valentin Gosu
As part of the Quantum Network initiative we are working on a project called "Race Cache With Network" (rcwn) [1]. This project changes the way the network cache works. When we detect that disk IO may be slow, we send a network request in parallel, and we use the first response that comes back.

W3C Charter Advance Notice: WebAssembly Working Group

2017-05-24 Thread L. David Baron
The W3C gave advance notice that a charter is under development for a new working group: WebAssembly Working Group https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/webassembly.html https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/ https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017May/0009.html Comments

Re: Intent to unship: -moz-placeholder pseudo-element and pseudo-class

2017-05-24 Thread Gijs Kruitbosch
On 24/05/2017 03:13, Ku(顧思捷)CJ wrote: I intend to remove "-moz-placeholder" pseudo-element and pseudo-class in bug 1300896. Which will ship in which release? 55 or 56? Esp. asking given the upcoming feature freeze for 55. ~ Gijs ___ dev-platform

Re: Scope of XML parser rewrite?

2017-05-24 Thread Axel Hecht
Am 24.05.17 um 09:34 schrieb Anne van Kesteren: On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Eric Rahm wrote: I was hoping to write a more thorough blog post about this proposal (I have some notes in a gist), but for now I've added comments inline. The main takeaway here is that I want

Re: Scope of XML parser rewrite?

2017-05-24 Thread Henri Sivonen
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > Contrary to Henri, I think XML 1.0 edition 5 (which isn't "XML5") is > worth considering given > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=501837. It's what Chrome > ships and our current implementation doesn't seem

Re: Scope of XML parser rewrite?

2017-05-24 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Eric Rahm wrote: > I was hoping to write a more thorough blog post about this proposal (I have > some notes in a gist), but for now I've added comments inline. The main > takeaway here is that I want to do a bare-bones replacement of just the >

Re: Scope of XML parser rewrite?

2017-05-24 Thread Henri Sivonen
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > It seems to me that attribute values would be the only case where a > conversion from UTF-8 to UTF-16 would be needed all the time, and that > conversion can be fast for ASCII, which is what attribute values > mostly

Re: Scope of XML parser rewrite?

2017-05-24 Thread Henri Sivonen
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Daniel Fath wrote: > So, if I understand this correctly - We'll first need to land this component > in Firefox, right? And if it proves itself fine, then formalize it. No, both the implementation and the spec would have to be pretty solid