Re: Bug "Out of date"

2011-03-08 Thread Dr Peter Young
On 8 Mar 2011 "Steve Fryatt" wrote: > On Tue, March 8, 2011 3:32 pm, Daniel Silverstone wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 03:28:35PM +, Dr Peter Young wrote: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=464312&aid=3201428&g roup_id=51719 >>> >>> Yes, does exactly what druck de

Re: Bug "Out of date"

2011-03-08 Thread Michael Drake
In article <4881.109.234.200.50.1299606471.squirrel@91.84.211.154>, Steve Fryatt wrote: > A log file from an affected copy of NetSurf might help With suppress_curl_debug set to 0 in the Choices file before NetSurf is run. -- Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.

Re: Bug "Out of date"

2011-03-08 Thread Brian Howlett
On 8 Mar, Dr Peter Young wrote: > Yes, does exactly what druck describes here; r11927 and RISC OS 5.16. r11894 here - takes ages to expand the contents of the frame, but after it has expanded NetSurf shows as using 0% of CPU, according to TaskUsage. > Gobbles up the memory, too. Yes, that doe

Re: Bug "Out of date"

2011-03-08 Thread Steve Fryatt
On Tue, March 8, 2011 3:32 pm, Daniel Silverstone wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 03:28:35PM +, Dr Peter Young wrote: >> > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=464312&aid=3201428&g >> > roup_id=51719 >> >> Yes, does exactly what druck describes here; r11927 and RISC OS 5.16. >> Go

Re: Bug "Out of date"

2011-03-08 Thread Richard Porter
On 8 Mar 2011 David J. Ruck wrote: > On 08/03/2011 08:38, John-Mark Bell wrote: >> On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 08:30 +, David J. Ruck wrote: >>> What is the reasoning behind marking a bug "out of date"? Particularly >>> when it is easily reproducible with the la

Re: Bug "Out of date"

2011-03-08 Thread Daniel Silverstone
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 03:28:35PM +, Dr Peter Young wrote: > > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=464312&aid=3201428&g > > roup_id=51719 > Yes, does exactly what druck describes here; r11927 and RISC OS 5.16. > Gobbles up the memory, too. This bug is not reproducable on Linux/

Re: Bug "Out of date"

2011-03-08 Thread Dr Peter Young
On 8 Mar 2011 "David J. Ruck" wrote: > On 08/03/2011 08:38, John-Mark Bell wrote: >> On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 08:30 +, David J. Ruck wrote: >>> What is the reasoning behind marking a bug "out of date"? Particularly >>> when it is easily reprod

Re: Bug "Out of date"

2011-03-08 Thread David J. Ruck
On 08/03/2011 08:38, John-Mark Bell wrote: On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 08:30 +, David J. Ruck wrote: What is the reasoning behind marking a bug "out of date"? Particularly when it is easily reproducible with the last test build by one click on the given URL. Simple: it was 4 years

Re: Bug "Out of date"

2011-03-08 Thread John-Mark Bell
On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 08:30 +, David J. Ruck wrote: > What is the reasoning behind marking a bug "out of date"? Particularly > when it is easily reproducible with the last test build by one click on > the given URL. Simple: it was 4 years old and I couldn't repro

Bug "Out of date"

2011-03-08 Thread David J. Ruck
What is the reasoning behind marking a bug "out of date"? Particularly when it is easily reproducible with the last test build by one click on the given URL. The bug in question was a serious one which caused NetSurf to use almost 100% of CPU, not just during rendering but after ren