=== m_conley is now known as m_conley_away === asac_ is now known as asac === m_conley_away is now known as m_conley === m_conley is now known as m_conley_away === m_conley_away is now known as m_conley [14:23] bhearsum, when do you start pushing out new builds to nightly and aurora users? [14:24] nightly updates to 8 should be out already [14:25] Aurora updates will probably be out late this week [14:25] (and incidentally, Beta updates should be out tomorrow/thursday) [14:25] bhearsum, ah, ok. thanks [14:25] i'm ready to do new aurora and beta builds this week :) [14:26] np, that's great! [14:47] mdeslaur, it seems that you triage more useless firefox bugs than i do ;) [14:47] i wish i could automate the closing of bugs like bug 804417 [14:48] Launchpad bug 804417 in firefox "facebook is not opening in firefox" [Undecided,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/804417 [14:48] chrisccoulson: yes, I get them out of the security so they can get properly ignored by the firefox team [14:48] thanks! \o/ [14:48] chrisccoulson: np :) [14:48] how are you enjoying the royal couple btw? [14:48] it's so great to not have them over here ;) [14:50] chrisccoulson: oh, they're kayaking in the northwest territories now. Would you like some pictures? :) [14:50] mdeslaur, no thanks, i'll let you keep the pictures to yourself :) [14:51] chrisccoulson: for future reference, please send more tv shows to canada, and less royal couples. thanks. [14:52] mdeslaur, oh, i'm not sure you would want some of our tv shows either ;) [14:52] some of them are pretty terrible [14:53] this looks crazy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14041973 [14:54] wow [14:55] that would be really annoying for anybody who had just spent a day washing and polishing their car [14:55] chrisccoulson: I was tempted to write "Try this link: http://www.facebook.com" in that bug [14:55] lol [14:55] that might be good advice [14:56] i honestly don't know what people expect us to do with bugs like that though, and that one is fairly low down on the usefulness scale ;) [14:57] I think I'll just tell them to go to askubuntu.com [14:57] that will please jcastro ;) [14:57] * mdeslaur will refrain from a fake steve jobs "Have you tried OpenBSD?" type response [14:58] lol [14:58] the convert to question response in firefox-lp-improvements suggests askubuntu.com [14:58] hmm, I should edit the one the security team uses [15:11] hm, no dpm :( [17:56] sigh @ https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=669625. i honestly think we should drop firefox [17:56] Mozilla bug 669625 in Disability Access APIs "Linux/atk support for for e10s" [Normal,New: ] [17:57] at least google try to keep chrome working on LTS versions [17:59] well, google runs on the LTS, so it behooves them :) [18:00] I mean they are commited to keeping it running [18:00] Firefox doesn't seem to be as committed to linux as a whole [18:08] indeed [18:08] and if that bug is anything to go by, then i don't see how we can realistically support firefox anymore tbh [18:09] well, they've been conservative with technologies the past even for new releases, so I think they might change their minds there once they realize the impact [18:14] chrisccoulson: workaround already proposed in that bug :) [18:15] heh [18:15] it's still concerning that we get mixed messages from mozilla. do they expect us to ship the latest version or not? [18:16] Fernando certainly didn't think that we would be :/ [18:53] i can't _imagine_ we would want Ubuntu LTS to ship really old Firefoxes [18:55] bhearsum: I'm still waiting to see what comes of the LTS discussions upstream [18:56] specifically, whether or not Mozilla is going to have LTS versions? [18:56] bhearsum: yes, and if not Mozilla, how much community support with specific knowledge of the codebase [18:57] * micahg would definitely prefer Mozilla to do it though :) [18:58] and that's not a commitment in any way to an LTS, but rather would like to see what's on the table and then make an informed decision [18:58] ah [18:58] i wouldn't prefer an LTS version of firefox, but I would prefer to ship the latest version if it works ;) [18:58] i'm not a decision maker or anything, but i can tell you that there's very little to no energy behind doing an LTS version - of course, that could change with enough backlash [18:59] right now we're mostly treating it as a reaction to change, though [19:00] i wouldn't really want to cripple our users with an LTS version of firefox, and one of the blockers for adopting linux is that we make users wait 6 whole months to get new versions of apps, which they have to upgrade their entire OS to get [19:00] we certainly don't want that [19:00] well, i don't ;) [19:01] and I don't want to deal with people having their addons broke every 6 weeks or with some other regression in the browser :), but we've already had this discussion :) [19:02] well, the addon situation isn't really that bad, and will certainly improve [19:02] as i've said before, the number of users who want to run the latest outweigh the number who want an old version [19:03] and if we're ever going to achieve mark's ambition of 200 million users, then the current status quo isn't good enough ;) [19:04] users on every other single platform get the latest version of the browser, and other applications [19:04] it's only us who make users wait 6 months and then force them to ugrade their entire OS [19:04] chrisccoulson: well, I'd rather figure out how to easily give the ones who want the latest crack rather than force it on everyone [19:04] why make the majority of users who want it jump through hoops? [19:05] well, I'd consider making the LTS only on an LTS if we do indeed see it's a majority (since the LTS user would most likely prefer stability) [19:05] well, we already have LTS users asking for the latest version [19:05] but it's moot until the conversation happens upstream [19:06] i even have people inside canonical pinging me for it now (from people running lucid) [19:06] chrisccoulson: we have a PPA for them [19:06] i certainly don't support the LTS idea. i just want to make sure the version we do get works [19:06] PPA's suck [19:07] we shouldn't provide users with a crappy experience and then tell them they have to install from a PPA to get an acceptable experience [19:07] the experience depends on what your goals are [19:07] and 3.6 really is a bad experience compared to the version of chromium we ship in lucid [19:07] well, if you set your goals low, then we'll never get anywhere tbh [19:07] 3.6 wouldn't be the Firefox LTS inany case [19:08] yeah, but 3.6 is a perfect example of how quickly things date [19:09] it's 1.5 yrs old, there are proposal for 6 month LTSs or 1 yr LTSs [19:09] again, moot discussion until discussion happens upstream [19:09] and as bhearsum said - "there's very little to no energy behind doing an LTS version". i think it would be foolish to throw away all the support we get, and the testing community, to ship an LTS version that nobody really supports (other than a few linux distro's) [19:12] this actually sums up my thoughts exactly: http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/msg/8192ab9c6511119f [19:12] and http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/msg/cdd6d90a4cfe83f2 [19:14] chrisccoulson: huh, do you not work for Canonical? [19:15] bhearsum, i do [19:15] oh, ok - i misread between the lines of backscroll [19:15] oh, which bit did you misread? [19:16] bhearsum: I'm the one responsible for the stable release security updates :) [19:16] i thought "people inside canonical" implied you weren't in that group [19:16] micahg: oh, cool [19:16] bhearsum, oh, sorry ;) [19:22] micahg, i'm going to try and get our firefox-next PPA building on armel btw [19:23] i spoke briefly to jelmer at the rally last week, and he seemed fairly open to the idea of letting us do that [19:23] chrisccoulson: umm, I think that's a bad idea until we get the faster arm builders [19:23] micahg, not for firefox-next, it will only be about 1 build/wk [19:24] we have no armel testing coverage at any point until we try to do a release build [19:24] um, I hope the beta channel isn't once a week [19:24] why? [19:24] i'm not sure how often builds will come from the beta channel, but i can't imagine it would be much less frequently than that [19:24] and why is that a problem? [19:24] I was still under the impression that the first beta should be the release build unless big issues are found [19:25] if they're rebuilding once a week, something is wrong with the process [19:25] well, new builds are inevitable as more people test them and find issues [19:25] i don't think that would indicate anything wrong with the process at all [19:25] and it's not like it's difficult for me to support that [19:25] well, in that case, they're really betas and not RCs [19:26] i'm already ready to push the button on the first 6.0 beta tomorrow [19:26] I'd like to actually use -proposed for extended user testing for this new process [19:27] but I can't do that if they rebuild every week [19:27] well, I could, it'll just be annoying [19:27] well, i don't know how often we'll get builds. but i honestly don't think that tomorrows beta will be the release build in 8 weeks time ;) [19:28] I think I need to talk to the RM about this and find out what the actual goal of the beta channel is [19:28] to fix all the remaining issues before release? [19:37] m_conley, did you see my comment in #ubuntu-desktop earlier, about an issue that didrocks had with thunderbird? [19:37] chrisccoulson: no - what's up? [19:38] m_conley, he was running a nightly build (because 5.0 crashes on startup), and he hit an issue where the UI main window was displaying with no contents in the folder pane [19:38] and this error in the error console: [19:38] "Error: tree is undefined" @ chrome://messenger/content/folderPane.js:885 [19:38] and when you look at the code, that exception is actually impossible [19:39] so, we deleted the startup cache from his profile, and it worked again afterwards :/ [19:39] chrisccoulson: hrm [19:39] obviously, not reproducible, which is helpful ;) [19:39] chrisccoulson: yeah. :/ [19:40] i wish we'd kept the contents of the startup cache now [19:40] hindsight is a wonderful thing ;) [19:43] chrisccoulson: no way to retrieve it? [19:44] m_conley, no, i just asked him to delete it, before i realized it might actually be useful to keep it [19:44] chrisccoulson: and what was this about TB 5 crashing on startup? I remember you mentioning it earlier, but it strikes me as odd. How did that pass our tests? [19:45] m_conley, that's basically https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=660778 [19:45] Mozilla bug 660778 in JavaScript Engine "Stack Overflow Crash [@ js::gc::Cell::arenaHeader() | js::gc::Cell::address()] | ASSERTION: JSEventListener has wrong script context?: 'stack && NS_SUCCEEDED(stack- >Peek(&cx)) && cx && GetScriptContextFromJSContext(cx) == mContext'" [Critical,Resolved: fixed] [19:45] i'm not sure what conditions actually trigger it [19:46] it's extremely strange that this got through our QA. [19:47] chrisccoulson: oh - the patch only landed yesterday... [21:03] and here comes Firefox 8.0 :O [21:04] evening === m_conley is now known as m_conley_away [22:40] is this guy spying on me? http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=11020681&postcount=471 [22:41] i uploaded that, like, 1 minute ago [22:43] ok, maybe 10 minutes ago ;)