matt.woodrow at gmail.com
Wed Nov 13 22:03:27 UTC 2013
I agree that this shouldn't block the australis landing.
I don't think that we need to rush into a backout just yet though.
Reverting the changing is incredibly simple, and it's very unlikely that
we'll regress anything on the existing path (since all other platforms
are still using it).
I'd much prefer to leave it in for now, so that we can get more user
coverage of the changes and potentially find out more information on the
effects the change has. We already missed one regression on
mozilla-central, it's fairly plausible that there are other issues not
covered by tests on any branch.
I plan on getting a patch up today to make it configurable using a pref,
and get it uplifted to aurora/beta. That way it will be incredibly easy
to disable if/when we decide to do so, and we also provide an option for
users affected by the text bug.
How about we give this a week to settle, and if we haven't sufficiently
fixed the issue (or have a concrete plan for doing so), then we start
On 14/11/13 7:45 AM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Justin Dolske <dolske at mozilla.com> wrote:
>> So, that's where we are. As soon as we know the plan for the last item
>> (bug 937519), we should be able to figure out when we're clear to land.
>> If it's simple to resolve, it could be as soon as next week. If not, it
>> could take longer.
> Given that the cause of the regression is well understood and not
> caused by Australis code, I don't think we need to block our landing
> on it. So unless anything else comes up, we're clear to land.
> Matt, I understand you've been investigating the regressions, but
> given that this is on Beta, it seems like it would be better to just
> back this out and fix things with a little less time pressure.
More information about the firefox-dev