Platform/2009-05-05: Difference between revisions

m
 
(21 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:


=== Notices / Schedule ===
=== Notices / Schedule ===
* '''[[Releases/Firefox 3.0.11 | Firefox 3.0.11]]'''
'''[[Releases/Firefox 3.0.11 | Firefox 3.0.11]]'''
** code freeze tomorrow at 11:59pm
** code freeze tomorrow at 11:59pm
** only a few blockers left though
** only a few blockers left though
Line 12: Line 12:


'''[[Releases/Firefox_3.5rc1|Firefox 3.5 RC1]]'''
'''[[Releases/Firefox_3.5rc1|Firefox 3.5 RC1]]'''
* beltzner to discuss schedule, fill in notes
* 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 ===
Line 19: Line 22:


'''Since 1.9.1 branch ...'''
'''Since 1.9.1 branch ...'''
http://people.mozilla.org/~beltzner/images/2009-05-05-blocker-report.png
https://people.mozilla.com/~beltzner/images/2009-05-05-blocker-report.png


'''Past 2 weeks ...'''
'''Past 2 weeks ...'''
http://people.mozilla.org/~beltzner/images/2009-05-05-blocker-report-detail.png
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] ]
[ [[Platform/1.9.1|Platform Blocker Queries]] | [http://people.mozilla.org/~beltzner/triage.html Front End Blocker Queries] ]
Line 40: Line 43:


=== 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 7 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]
* 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]
** really nothing challenging or risky here
** two tricky things (undo close window fallout, tab drag and drop)
** big props to Johnath and Dietrich for getting {{bug|486236}} handled
** big props to Johnath and Dietrich for getting {{bug|486236}} handled (again!)


* Polish update: Firefox is 55% shiny (+2% over two weeks ago)
* Polish update: Firefox is 55% shiny (+2% over two weeks ago)
Line 48: Line 51:
** 44 remaining [http://tinyurl.com/8qnba2 easy polish bugs] (whiteboard [polish-easy])
** 44 remaining [http://tinyurl.com/8qnba2 easy polish bugs] (whiteboard [polish-easy])
** 38 remaining [http://tinyurl.com/9zq9xz hard polish bugs](whiteboard [polish-hard])
** 38 remaining [http://tinyurl.com/9zq9xz hard polish bugs](whiteboard [polish-hard])
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pMZGKUlD9NOPg4oJGs1CUMw&oid=1&output=image&foo=.png
https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pMZGKUlD9NOPg4oJGs1CUMw&oid=1&output=image&foo=.png


=== GFX 1.9.1 Update ===
=== GFX 1.9.1 Update ===
Line 74: Line 77:


=== 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 86: 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 [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Evangelism/Firefox3.5#User_Experience this list] (which will be used to generate the press reviewer's guide, mozilla.com content, etc):
* 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
2,088

edits