Platform/2009-05-05: Difference between revisions

From MozillaWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(multi-process)
 
(31 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:


=== Notices / Schedule ===
=== Notices / Schedule ===
'''[[Releases/Firefox 3.0.11 | Firefox 3.0.11]]'''
** code freeze tomorrow at 11:59pm
** only a few blockers left though
'''[[Releases/Firefox_3.5b4|Firefox 3.5 Beta 4]]'''
* released last week
* contains lots of great stuff
* well received so far!
'''[[Releases/Firefox_3.5rc1|Firefox 3.5 RC1]]'''
* code freeze for RC in late May required to hit June release window
* while we will aim to make RC1 perfect, previous Firefox releases have needed up to 3 RCs before we're ship-ready
* goal is to code freeze late in the week of the 18th
** we'll re-evaluate then based on remaining work to do


=== Blocker Report ===
=== Blocker Report ===
* [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=ALL%20flag%3Ablocking-firefox3.5%3F%2Cblocking1.9.1%3F 30 blocker nominations]
* [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=flag%3Ablocking-firefox3.5%2B%2Cblocking1.9.1%2B 86 blockers left without a fix]
'''Since 1.9.1 branch ...'''
https://people.mozilla.com/~beltzner/images/2009-05-05-blocker-report.png
'''Past 2 weeks ...'''
https://people.mozilla.com/~beltzner/images/2009-05-05-blocker-report-detail.png
[ [[Platform/1.9.1|Platform Blocker Queries]] | [http://people.mozilla.org/~beltzner/triage.html Front End Blocker Queries] ]
'''Summary'''
* slow week due to all hands
* need to keep pressure and pace up!
'''The Breakdown'''
* [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?keywords_type=anywords&keywords=fixed1.9.1+verified1.9.1&resolution=FIXED&chfieldfrom=2009-04-28&chfieldto=Now&chfield=keywords&chfieldvalue=fixed1.9.1&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&type0-0-0=equals&value0-0-0=blocking1.9.1%2B&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&type0-0-1=equals&value0-0-1=blocking-firefox3.5%2B 6 blockers marked fixed1.9.1 over last week]
* [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&type0-0-0=equals&value0-0-0=blocking1.9.1%3F&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&type0-0-1=equals&value0-0-1=blocking-firefox3.5%3F&field0-1-0=flagtypes.name&type0-1-0=changedafter&value0-1-0=2009-04-28 21 bugs nominated for blocking over last week]
** blocking-firefox3.5+: [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?resolution=---&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&type0-0-0=changedto&value0-0-0=blocking-firefox3.5%2B&field0-1-0=flagtypes.name&type0-1-0=changedafter&value0-1-0=2009-04-28 7 new unresolved], [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&chfieldto=Now&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&type0-0-0=changedto&value0-0-0=blocking-firefox3.5%2B&field0-1-0=flagtypes.name&type0-1-0=changedafter&value0-1-0=2009-04-28 2 new resolved blocking-firefox3.5+ added]
** blocking1.9.1+: [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?resolution=---&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&type0-0-0=changedto&value0-0-0=blocking1.9.1%2B&field0-1-0=flagtypes.name&type0-1-0=changedafter&value0-1-0=2009-04-28 12 new unresolved], [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&chfieldto=Now&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&type0-0-0=changedto&value0-0-0=blocking1.9.1%2B&field0-1-0=flagtypes.name&type0-1-0=changedafter&value0-1-0=2009-04-28 7 new resolved blocking1.9.1+ added]
* [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&type0-0-0=changedto&value0-0-0=approval1.9.1%2B&field0-1-0=flagtypes.name&type0-1-0=changedafter&value0-1-0=2009-04-28 14 patches approved for 1.9.1 over last week]
* [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=FIX%20-!fixed1.9.1%2Cverified1.9.1%20flag%3Ablocking1.9.1%2B,blocking-firefox3.5%2B 77 blockers are FIXED but not yet landed on 1.9.1]
* [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&keywords_type=nowords&keywords=fixed1.9.1%20verified1.9.1&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&type0-0-0=equals&value0-0-0=approval1.9.1%2B 38 bugs with approval1.9.1+ that are not yet landed on 1.9.1]


=== Browser / Front End ===
=== Browser / Front End ===
* Blockers: [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&product=Firefox&product=Toolkit&keywords_type=nowords&keywords=fixed1.9.1+verified1.9.1&resolution=---&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&type0-0-0=equals&value0-0-0=blocking1.9.1%2B&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&type0-0-1=equals&value0-0-1=blocking-firefox3.5%2B&field0-1-0=resolution&type0-1-0=noop&value0-1-0=INVALID+WONTFIX+WORKSFORME+INCOMPLETE+MOVED+EXPIRED 11 remaining] & [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&product=Firefox&product=Toolkit&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&type0-0-0=equals&value0-0-0=blocking1.9.1%3F&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&type0-0-1=equals&value0-0-1=blocking-firefox3.5%3F 5 nominations]
** two tricky things (undo close window fallout, tab drag and drop)
** big props to Johnath and Dietrich for getting {{bug|486236}} handled (again!)
* Polish update: Firefox is 55% shiny (+2% over two weeks ago)
** Thanks go to: marco, dao
** 44 remaining [http://tinyurl.com/8qnba2 easy polish bugs] (whiteboard [polish-easy])
** 38 remaining [http://tinyurl.com/9zq9xz hard polish bugs](whiteboard [polish-hard])
https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pMZGKUlD9NOPg4oJGs1CUMw&oid=1&output=image&foo=.png


=== GFX 1.9.1 Update ===
=== GFX 1.9.1 Update ===
* 5 blocking bugs
** 4 of them are image rendering related, either perf or artifacts when zooming
** 1 is the nsWindow destroy bug, which our bandaid attempt didn't fix


=== Layout Update ===
=== Layout Update ===
Line 24: Line 73:


=== JS 1.9.1 ===
=== JS 1.9.1 ===
23 blockers, around 4 with patches in hand. 5 noms.


=== General 1.9.1 ===
=== General 1.9.1 ===
These are bugs that fall outside of components covered by the Gfx, Content, Layout and JS groups:
* [http://is.gd/pSlv 3 blockers]
* [http://is.gd/pSn6 1 untriaged nominations]


=== Mobile 1.9.1 Update ===
=== Mobile 1.9.1 Update ===
Line 38: Line 93:
* Initial focus will be responsiveness/stability, ''not'' security sandboxing
* Initial focus will be responsiveness/stability, ''not'' security sandboxing
* We're looking for places where chrome JS currently touches content DOM directly... see mozilla.dev.platform post for more details.
* We're looking for places where chrome JS currently touches content DOM directly... see mozilla.dev.platform post for more details.
jst: "we're going to need to remote arbitrary JS across processes to satisfy out of process plugins, so we may have the necessary machinery in place already"
* Decisions need to be made about how to approach the network stack (should we switch to chromium's network stack wholesale?), but I don't know the right way to have that conversation/make that decision (it's hard to know whether switching would reduce or extend the total time of the multiple-process work).
* Decisions need to be made about how to approach the network stack (should we switch to chromium's network stack wholesale?), but I don't know the right way to have that conversation/make that decision (it's hard to know whether switching would reduce or extend the total time of the multiple-process work).
** why? "because the chromium network stack and IPC stack already work well together"
** but mapping that to existing necko API surface may be difficult
cjones: why do we want to centralize networking in the chrome process? Wouldn't it be better to have the content processes do their own networking?
answers include: to avoid the weight of SSL/NSS in each process: to avoid complicating sharing activities for disk cache, cookies, and other shared state.  we should evaluate this ourselves.
bent: we probably are going to have to make significant modifications to the Chromium IPC stack, because they use RTTI/exceptions ([pkasting] As a Chromium contributor I can tell you authoritatively that this is untrue; we don't use or enable RTTI/exceptions anywhere in the codebase.)
cjones: We should consider an IPC language, instead of a library, which we can use for typechecking and type safety, including protocol safety (e.g., read() only happens after open() and before close()).


=== Tree Management ===
=== Tree Management ===
* Fixed intermittent orange on talos, Tshutdown tests enabled in talos last week, [http://alice.nodelman.net/blog/post/tshutdown-goes-live/ details here]
* [http://oduinn.com/2009/05/01/infrastructure-load-for-apr-2009/ infrastructure load for april]
* more machines coming to help deal with wait times
* long downtime next week for firmware update on equallogic (held off from last week, and from before FF3.5b4).


=== Roundtable ===
=== Roundtable ===
* If you worked on a user facing feature, please make sure it is on [[Evangelism/Firefox3.5#User_Experience|this list]] (which will be used to generate the press reviewer's guide, mozilla.com content, etc):
* Blog funnel starting up: [[Evangelism/Firefox3.5/35Days]] - will ask for help/writing

Latest revision as of 18:29, 26 May 2009

« previous week | index | next week »

Notices / Schedule

Firefox 3.0.11

    • code freeze tomorrow at 11:59pm
    • only a few blockers left though

Firefox 3.5 Beta 4

  • released last week
  • contains lots of great stuff
  • well received so far!

Firefox 3.5 RC1

  • code freeze for RC in late May required to hit June release window
  • while we will aim to make RC1 perfect, previous Firefox releases have needed up to 3 RCs before we're ship-ready
  • goal is to code freeze late in the week of the 18th
    • we'll re-evaluate then based on remaining work to do

Blocker Report

Since 1.9.1 branch ... 2009-05-05-blocker-report.png

Past 2 weeks ... 2009-05-05-blocker-report-detail.png

[ Platform Blocker Queries | Front End Blocker Queries ]

Summary

  • slow week due to all hands
  • need to keep pressure and pace up!

The Breakdown

Browser / Front End

  • Blockers: 11 remaining & 5 nominations
    • two tricky things (undo close window fallout, tab drag and drop)
    • big props to Johnath and Dietrich for getting bug 486236 handled (again!)
  • Polish update: Firefox is 55% shiny (+2% over two weeks ago)

pub?key=pMZGKUlD9NOPg4oJGs1CUMw&oid=1&output=image&foo=.png

GFX 1.9.1 Update

  • 5 blocking bugs
    • 4 of them are image rendering related, either perf or artifacts when zooming
    • 1 is the nsWindow destroy bug, which our bandaid attempt didn't fix

Layout Update

  • Roc is not available today
  • Layout
    • 5 blockers on trunk (3 with patches)
    • 10 untriaged noms (3 fixed)
  • SVG
    • 0 blockers
  • Video/Audio
    • 19 blockers (6 with patches) (could be pruned, should not delay our schedule)

Content Update

Mac OS X Update

JS 1.9.1

23 blockers, around 4 with patches in hand. 5 noms.

General 1.9.1

These are bugs that fall outside of components covered by the Gfx, Content, Layout and JS groups:

Mobile 1.9.1 Update

Security

Multi-Process

  • Initial docs with phases and SWAG schedule available.
  • Initial focus will be responsiveness/stability, not security sandboxing
  • We're looking for places where chrome JS currently touches content DOM directly... see mozilla.dev.platform post for more details.

jst: "we're going to need to remote arbitrary JS across processes to satisfy out of process plugins, so we may have the necessary machinery in place already"

  • Decisions need to be made about how to approach the network stack (should we switch to chromium's network stack wholesale?), but I don't know the right way to have that conversation/make that decision (it's hard to know whether switching would reduce or extend the total time of the multiple-process work).
    • why? "because the chromium network stack and IPC stack already work well together"
    • but mapping that to existing necko API surface may be difficult

cjones: why do we want to centralize networking in the chrome process? Wouldn't it be better to have the content processes do their own networking? answers include: to avoid the weight of SSL/NSS in each process: to avoid complicating sharing activities for disk cache, cookies, and other shared state. we should evaluate this ourselves.

bent: we probably are going to have to make significant modifications to the Chromium IPC stack, because they use RTTI/exceptions ([pkasting] As a Chromium contributor I can tell you authoritatively that this is untrue; we don't use or enable RTTI/exceptions anywhere in the codebase.)

cjones: We should consider an IPC language, instead of a library, which we can use for typechecking and type safety, including protocol safety (e.g., read() only happens after open() and before close()).

Tree Management

  • Fixed intermittent orange on talos, Tshutdown tests enabled in talos last week, details here
  • infrastructure load for april
  • more machines coming to help deal with wait times
  • long downtime next week for firmware update on equallogic (held off from last week, and from before FF3.5b4).

Roundtable

  • If you worked on a user facing feature, please make sure it is on this list (which will be used to generate the press reviewer's guide, mozilla.com content, etc):
  • Blog funnel starting up: Evangelism/Firefox3.5/35Days - will ask for help/writing
Retrieved from "https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=Platform/2009-05-05&oldid=145792"