Mark Côté wrote:
> It was announced in May
> (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.tools/4qroY2Iia9I),
> linked to in this forum:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/qh5scX3Gk2U/xCWe8jrOAQAJ
I stand corrected, thanks. I would've thought that'd be put in
moz.dev.plann
Hi Joe,
I just want to publicly apologize for being sarcastic in my original
post to you.
I could've found a better voice and the frustration clouded my
judgement.
I'm sorry.
Edmund
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://
BTW, speaking of training: Jason's and my book, "Programming Rust" will be
available on paper from O'Reilly on August 29th! Steve Klabnik's book with
No Starch Press is coming out soon as well, but I don't know the details
there.
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
> Nick,
>
On 2017-07-17 8:46 PM, Edmund Wong wrote:
Mike Hoye wrote:
Given that we've been talking about this stuff for years now, I think
it's very clear that we haven't come to this point by "somebody at the
top issuing an edict that they want something modern"; the decision to
commit to Phabricator w
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> If the bug is only serving as an anchor to track code review, then the
> question we should be asking is "do we even need a bug."
>
In my experience the answer to this is "yes, we need a bug". I very rarely
have a one-to-one mapping betwe
Two Sundays ago I went through and closed the first batch of intermittent
bugs with no new OrangeFactor (or other) comments. That was 5,000 bugs and
cause an bugmail storm.
I'm holding off on closing the next batch, because we need to run a script
to do this.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug
Mike Hoye wrote:
>
> Given that we've been talking about this stuff for years now, I think
> it's very clear that we haven't come to this point by "somebody at the
> top issuing an edict that they want something modern"; the decision to
> commit to Phabricator was ultimately announced on May 11th
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 4:11 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> The W3C is proposing a new charter for:
>
> Web Commerce Interest Group
> https://www.w3.org/2017/03/commerce-charter.html
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Jul/0008.html
Context: while technically with a new
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Kris Maglione
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 09:52:55AM -0700, Bobby Holley wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Benjamin Smedberg > >
>> wrote:
>>
>> I don't know really anything about how rust panics get reflected into
>>> crash-data. Who would be the
The W3C is proposing a new charter for:
Web Commerce Interest Group
https://www.w3.org/2017/03/commerce-charter.html
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Jul/0008.html
Mozilla has the opportunity to send support, comments, or objections
through Monday, August 28. If thi
I filed a central tracker bug for production Phabricator deployment:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1381498. I have filed
blockers and dependencies for a variety of related tasks as discussed in
these threads.
Mark
On 2017-07-14 11:33 AM, Milan Sreckovic wrote:
Replying in ge
Nick,
Thanks for kicking off this discussion! I felt like a broken record
talking to people about this in SF. From my perspective Rust is our
single-biggest competitive advantage for shipping Firefox, and every
time we choose C++ over Rust we throw that away. We know the costs of
shipping complica
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017, at 07:41 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 04:06:39PM -0700, Eric Rahm wrote:
> > Interesting points.
> >
> >- *using breakpad* - was the problem that creating wrappers to access
> >the c/c++ code was too tedious? Could bindgen help with that, if not it
On 7/16/17 11:10 PM, Edmund Wong wrote:
Joe Hildebrand wrote:
I'm responding at the top of the thread here so that I'm not singling out any
particular response.
We didn't make clear in this process how much work Mark and his team did ahead
of the decision to gather feedback from senior engine
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 09:52:55AM -0700, Bobby Holley wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Benjamin Smedberg
wrote:
I don't know really anything about how rust panics get reflected into
crash-data. Who would be the right person to talk to about that?
Rust panics are equivalent to MOZ_CR
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Benjamin Smedberg
wrote:
> I don't know really anything about how rust panics get reflected into
> crash-data. Who would be the right person to talk to about that?
>
Rust panics are equivalent to MOZ_CRASHES, and we treat them as such (or at
least try to, see bug
As of bug 1275780, rust panic text gets reported as a MOZ_CRASH reason.
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Benjamin Smedberg
wrote:
> I don't know really anything about how rust panics get reflected into
> crash-data. Who would be the right person to talk to about that?
>
> --BDS
>
> On Mon, Jul
I don't know really anything about how rust panics get reflected into
crash-data. Who would be the right person to talk to about that?
--BDS
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Emilio Cobos Álvarez
wrote:
> On 07/17/2017 05:18 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:> Unlike MOZ_CRASH,
> which only annotates
On 07/17/2017 05:18 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:> Unlike MOZ_CRASH,
which only annotates crashes with compile-time constants
> which are inherently not risky, both MOZ_CRASH_UNSAFE_OOL and
> MOZ_CRASH_UNSAFE_PRINTF can annotate crashes with arbitrary data. Crash
> reasons are publicly visible in cr
> On Jul 15, 2017, at 23:36, Gabriele Svelto wrote:
>
>> On 14/07/2017 05:39, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> I should note that with GitHub what this means is that you get
>> discussion on the PR that should have gone in the issue, with the result
>> that people following the issue don't see half the
Please take care when using the MOZ_CRASH_UNSAFE_* macros. Because of the
risk involved and because this constitutes data collection, I would like
Firefox data stewards to review any new usages of the MOZ_CRASH_UNSAFE_*
macros.
Unlike MOZ_CRASH, which only annotates crashes with compile-time const
On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 11:39:38 PM UTC-4, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 7/13/17 9:04 PM, Mark Côté wrote:
> > It is also what newer systems
> > do today (e.g. GitHub and the full Phabricator suite)
>
> I should note that with GitHub what this means is that you get
> discussion on the PR that s
22 matches
Mail list logo
