On 2017-03-22 19:34, Botond Ballo wrote:
Now that this change has hit the release channel, we've started
receiving feedback from a wider range of users, a lot of it in bug
1345661 [1].
I believe the feedback in that thread brings some new information to
the table that we weren't aware of when th
On 2017-04-25 00:04, Martin Thomson wrote:
> I think that 60Hz is too high a rate for this.
>
> I suggest that we restrict this to top-level, foreground, and secure
> contexts. Note that foreground is a necessary precondition for the
> attack, so that restriction doesn't really help here. Critic
On 2017-04-26 11:01, Gervase Markham wrote:
On 25/04/17 16:46, Eric Rescorla wrote:
This suggests that maybe we could just turn it off
It would be sad to remove a capability from the web platform which
native apps have. Surely we can avoid this problem without being so
drastic? Is it right tha
On 28/01/2018 21:03, Daniel Veditz wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 6:35 PM, greyhorseman wrote:
so we're talking 2 full releases and maybe 6-7 months? Am I at at least
close to correct.
If your question was truly "allow ME to use my ubikeys?" (emphasis mine)
then you can do that since Firefo
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 09:36:15AM -0700, J.C. Jones wrote:
> The only big U2F property I am familiar with that our support doesn't
> function for is Google Accounts, but I'm sure there are others. (It'd be
> interesting to get a list. I'll take that to a different thread, though)
I've spend some
On 2015-11-30 22:11, Mitchell Baker wrote:
5. Many inside of Mozilla, including an overwhelming majority of our
leadership, feel the need to be laser-focused on activities like Firefox
that can have an industry-wide impact.With all due respect to
Thunderbird and the Thunderbird community, we
On 2015-12-04 19:43, jmath...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 11:08:08 AM UTC-6, Armen Zambrano G. wrote:
LastPass bring the browser to a crawl making it almost impossible to
use. If we have users using LastPass on the beta population using e10s
we're going to have a lot of peo
On 2016-02-03 14:23, Henri Sivonen wrote:
As for the consequences of requiring SSE2 unconditionally, I'm
personally more worried about a conflict with Linux distros that don't
already require SSE2 (even if near 100% of their users actually had
SSE2-enabled hardware; this concern is not about the
On 2016-03-09 22:17, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 3/9/16 3:47 PM, decoder...@googlemail.com wrote:
Actually no. I adapted our gtests in less than an hour.
Does this have to do with the set of things they're testing, or the
style the tests are written in?
I think the point is that some tests make
On 2016-05-18 10:10, Henri Sivonen wrote:
What do we need to do to reach a decision that it's indeed OK to treat
*run-time* selection of SSE2 vs. non-SSE2 especially in Rust code as a
"patches not even welcome" kind of thing, considering that this may
lead to Linux distros shipping an 32-bit x86
On 2016-05-27 03:50, Nathan Froyd wrote:
Given the standard library's pervasive use of exceptions, and our
aversion to the same, if you are using a standard library header
that's not listed here:
Are there plans to start using C++ exception? The wiki seems to suggest
there are plans, but it w
On 2016-07-14 17:49, Mike Hoye wrote:
On 2016-07-13 10:31 PM, ajo...@mozilla.com wrote:
Our official Firefox builds on Linux support both PulseAudio and ALSA.
There are a number of additional contributed backends that can be
turned on at compile time, although contribution towards long-term
main
On 2016-07-17 18:38, David Bruant wrote:
2) Timestamps of the files inside the .tar.bz2 package will differ, but
untarring them and using a recursive diff will reveal no differences (except
for the aforementioned .chk files)
The second point sort of solves them both. As part of making things
On 2016-07-19 00:49, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 09:38:31AM -0700, David Bruant wrote:
Out of curiosity, how has is the TOR team handled points 1 and 2?
I cannot answer for TOR, but I can answer for Debian, who also does
reproducible builds of Firefox.
1) is not addressed at al
On 2016-07-18 20:56, Gregory Szorc wrote:
Then of course there is build signing, which takes a private key
and cryptographically signs builds/installers. With these in play, there is
no way for anybody not Mozilla to do a bit-for-bit reproduction of most
(all?) of the Firefox distributions at
ht
15 matches
Mail list logo