What is the reasoning behind marking a bug out of date?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 rendering had
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What is the reasoning behind marking a bug out of date?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 reproduce it (and still can't
fwiw
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What is the reasoning behind marking a bug out of date?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 old and I
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What is the reasoning behind marking a bug out of date?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 last test build by one click on
the given URL
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=detailatid=464312aid=3201428g
roup_id=51719
Yes, does exactly what druck describes here; r11927 and RISC OS 5.16.
Gobbles up the
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 does
On 8 Mar 2011 Steve Fryatt li...@stevefryatt.org.uk 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=detailatid=464312aid=3201428g
roup_id=51719
Yes, does exactly what druck
