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
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.
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
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
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 What is the reasoning behind marking a bug "out of date"?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
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/
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 What is the reasoning behind marking a bug "out of date"?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
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What is the reasoning behind marking a bug "out of date"?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
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 What is the reasoning behind marking a bug "out of date"?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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo