Closed Bug 1025878 Opened 10 years ago Closed 10 years ago
.js to version 1 .0 .370
Assignee: nobody → ryanvm
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #8440671 - Flags: review?(ydelendik)
Attachment #8440671 - Flags: review?(ydelendik) → review+
(In reply to Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM UTC-4] from comment #0) > Reading njn's last blog post, am I crazy for thinking we might want to > consider an Aurora uplift on this for Fx32 as well? I would rather uplift only few of them (most safe): #4920, #4932, #4936 (also #4902 and #4907?). > Also, we should probably > consider getting B2G's in-tree copy updated as well. Yeah, we will need to uplift one more change from bug 1009780 for that.
Thanks, RyanVM! Though if we do uplift to Aurora, the release dates in my blog post will be wrong... but I can live with that :) #4920 and #4932 are definitely the most important of my four patches.
Whiteboard: [MemShrink] → [MemShrink][fixed-in-fx-team]
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: [MemShrink][fixed-in-fx-team] → [MemShrink]
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 33
(In reply to Yury Delendik (:yury) from comment #2) > I would rather uplift only few of them (most safe): #4920, #4932, #4936 > (also #4902 and #4907?). We should probably file a new bug for any Aurora-specific uplifts we want to do if we're not going to take the update wholesale, but I think low-risk perf improvements are well within the scope for Aurora landing, especially this early in the cycle.
#4959 is a good candidate for uplift to Aurora as well.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.