We need to have a "seed" to coalesce the client development around: a directory in mozilla-inbound, hooks into the build system, etc. Basically, when this bug is satisfied, one should be able to download the official Nightly build, maybe flip on a pref, and have a "loop" button (even if it doesn't do anything useful). By my reading, the "demo" patch on Bug 971987 is most of the way to what we need here, modulo mixedpuppy's concerns in that bug.

This is still WIP. To test it, you need to add to social.activeProviders: {"chrome://browser/content/loop/":1} (or extend the existing object with another parameter.

Gavin and I had a long chat yesterday about possible approaches here, and we left with the intent to flesh out more of the underlying assumptions on Wednesday and possibly even come up with some options. Clearly, this is a fine option; I'm also interested in seeing what else we figure out on Wednesday before going to far here.

Going to be afk for a few days, so assigning to default so others can take this up.

Comment on attachment 8381431 [details] [diff] [review] Refined minimal landing v1 patch is setting social.enabled, keep in mind that bug 894806 is intending to remove that pref and base enabled state on having a single enabled provider.

> patch is setting social.enabled, keep in mind that bug 894806 is intending > to remove that pref and base enabled state on having a single enabled > provider. s/single/at least one/

This is everything from Mark's patch except for the changes to firefox.js. To test this, for now, simply open chrome://browser/content/loop/panel.html in the browser.

(In reply to Adam Roach [:abr] from comment #6) > Created attachment 8384147 [details] > Initial chrome panel, empty for now This landed in the temp dev repo here: https://github.com/adamroach/gecko-dev/pull/2

Since this is an MLP bug, I need this to have an owner. Mark, you seem like the right choice.

Assigning to Adam, as he's currently looking into the issues surrounding loading of packaged code into content which is likely to affect the solution here.

This behavior is demonstrably working, so I suspect we should either mark this landed or dupe it to another bug. It feels like Bug 995130 is the thing that this has morphed into, and I propose duping this to that bug. Does that make sense to you, Mark?

Pretty sure this is a dupe, but we'll wait for Mark. Marking MLP? in the meantime.

The work will be finished in bug 995130/bug 976109, so I think we can call this fixed as something has landed for this bug already.

Untracking for QA. Please needinfo me to request specific testing.