On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Byron Jones wrote:
> instead of disabling splinter for phabricator backed products, we could make
> it a read-only patch viewer.
Given the number of bugs that exist with patches attached, that would
be greatly appreciated. I would also assume that attaching patch
To answer the other part of your question, MozReview will be disabled for
active use across the board, but it is currently used by a small number of
projects. Splinter will be disabled on a per-product basis, as there may be
some projects that can't, won't, or shouldn't be migrated to Phabricator
I assume this was integrated with OrangeFactor?
That is the only way I know to determine whether an intermittent
failure has occurred, because failures are not necessarily
reported to bugzilla.
Is there a mechanism for tracking a failure that we intend to
addresss, even when it does not fail ever
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 09:59:57PM -0400, Mark Côté wrote:
> On 2017-07-11 9:51 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Mark Côté wrote:
> > > * MozReview and Splinter turned off in early December.
> >
> > Is this bugzilla-wide? I know that other project use splinter still
On 2017-07-11 9:51 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Mark Côté wrote:
* MozReview and Splinter turned off in early December.
Is this bugzilla-wide? I know that other project use splinter still.
Will those projects be able to use phabricator for their projects?
>
> F
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Mark Côté wrote:
> * MozReview and Splinter turned off in early December.
Is this bugzilla-wide? I know that other project use splinter still.
Will those projects be able to use phabricator for their projects?
For instance, NSS uses a separate instance of phabri
We're currently trying to figure that out. It's unlikely that it will
be available for the initial launch of Phabricator, but we hope to have
it not too long after. I'll have an update in a couple weeks.
Mark
On 2017-07-11 7:32 PM, Chris Pearce wrote:
What is the status of push-to-review s
What is the status of push-to-review support?
Chris.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 8:42:06 AM UTC+12, Mark Côté wrote:
> Hi all, here's a brief update on the project to deploy and integrate
> Phabricator at Mozilla:
>
> * Development Phabricator instance is up at
> https://mozphab.dev.mozaw
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 08:05:05AM +0900, Brian Birtles wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Jim Mathies wrote:
>
> > What's the debugging situation look like for Windows developers? I've heard
> > it's pretty painful. Can we step through rust code using common tools
> > (WinDBG/Visual Stud
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Jim Mathies wrote:
> What's the debugging situation look like for Windows developers? I've heard
> it's pretty painful. Can we step through rust code using common tools
> (WinDBG/Visual Studio)?
>
You can set breakpoints and step through rust code using Visual S
On Wednesday 2017-07-05 20:58 -0700, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On July 6, 2017 at 1:40:13 PM, L. David Baron (dba...@dbaron.org) wrote:
> > I've taken what you (Tantek) wrote and made minor changes to yield
> > the following Formal Objection to the Web Platform WG charter.
>
> I support the updated
Hi all, here's a brief update on the project to deploy and integrate
Phabricator at Mozilla:
* Development Phabricator instance is up at
https://mozphab.dev.mozaws.net/, authenticated via
bugzilla-dev.allizom.org.
* Development, read-only UI for Lando (the new automatic-landing
service) has bee
We have implementation close to review for one-shot sync. I don't know of
any browser that has implemented and shipped periodic sync yet.
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:49 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Tuesday 2017-07-11 11:38 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> > On Wednesday 2017-07-05 11:02 -0700, L.
On Tuesday 2017-07-11 11:38 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Wednesday 2017-07-05 11:02 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> > On Friday 2017-05-12 15:58 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> > > The W3C gave advance notice that 2 new charters are under
> > > development:
> > >
> > > https://lists.w3.org/Ar
On Wednesday 2017-07-05 11:02 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Friday 2017-05-12 15:58 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> > The W3C gave advance notice that 2 new charters are under
> > development:
> >
> > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017May/0006.html
> > (which contains
The W3C is proposing a new charter for:
WebVR Working Group
https://www.w3.org/2017/07/vr-wg-charter.html
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Jul/0002.html
Mozilla has the opportunity to send support, comments, or objections
through Friday, August 18. If this is work t
Hi,
(Answering privately until I get more manager intent to get this project as
part of any long term roadmap)
For your information, I am currently looking, on my spare time, at one way
to get SpiderMonkey to be rewritten in Rust. (*)
Currently SpiderMonkey is one big monolithic pieces of c
On 07/11/2017 03:46 PM, Nicolas B. Pierron wrote:
(Answering privately until I get more manager intent to get this project as
part of any long term roadmap)
Or not so privately after all … :(
--
Nicolas B. Pierron
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-pl
What's the debugging situation look like for Windows developers? I've heard
it's pretty painful. Can we step through rust code using common tools
(WinDBG/Visual Studio)?
Jim
-Original Message-
From: dev-platform
[mailto:dev-platform-bounces+jmathies=mozilla@lists.mozilla.org] On
Behal
On 07/11/2017 04:27 PM, Ben Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Nicholas Nethercote
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Bobby Holley
wrote:
If I were the owner of that module I would consider implementing a policy
something like the following:
"When a person writes a new c
I'm currently trying to improve the C++ <-> Rust FFI story a bit. I just
posted a draft proposal to add a mode to rustc that has it output the ABI
details of all public types:
https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/stabilizing-a-machine-readable-zprint-type-sizes/5525
This would theoretically reduce ou
On 07/10/2017 01:29 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
Hi,
Firefox now has multiple Rust components, and it's on track to get a bunch
more. See https://wiki.mozilla.org/Oxidation for details.
I think this is an excellent trend, and I've been thinking about how to
accelerate it. Here's a provocative
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Bobby Holley
> wrote:
>
> > If I were the owner of that module I would consider implementing a policy
> >> something like the following:
> >>
> >> "When a person writes a new compiled-code component,
On 7/10/17 5:29 AM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
- Interop with existing components can be difficult. IPDL codegen rust
bindings could be a big help.
Rust's C++ interop story is absolutely atrocious. The FFI basically runs
on C ABI, even though Rust and C++ have some similar concepts that could
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Oxidation#Documentation has some documentation
about how Rust code should be incorporated into Firefox. I don't know how
accurate and thorough it is, but it looks like a good starting point.
Nick
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Gabor Krizsanits
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jul
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Kris Maglione
wrote:
> Combined with the fact that I would have needed to find and dig through
> various scattered mailing list posts and wiki pages, and then pester a
> bunch of people by email or IRC just to get started, I've always given up
> the idea pretty qu
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Bobby Holley
wrote:
> If I were the owner of that module I would consider implementing a policy
>> something like the following:
>>
>> "When a person writes a new compiled-code component, or majorly rewrites
>> an existing one, they should strongly consider writi
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:04 AM, Chris Peterson
wrote:
> On 7/10/17 4:48 PM, Xidorn Quan wrote:
>
>> The first thing comes to my mind is crash reports. It currently doesn't
>> always include useful panic message from Rust, see for example [1] and [2].
>> Also for Stylo, we generate lots of code (
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:29 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> The standard sentence:
> "Most WebAssembly Working Group teleconferences will focus on
> discussion of particular specifications, and will be conducted on an
> as-needed basis."
> doesn't seem to make sense for a working group that bas
29 matches
Mail list logo