Clean backport. Tested in connection with 4 other WebKit fixes in the
`test-kcr-11.0.19` branch, including a successful CI build. I also verfied that
the native WebKit code is identical to mainline jfx after applying all patches
(excluding a couple of copyright years).
-
Commit mes
Clean backport. Tested in connection with 4 other WebKit fixes in the
`test-kcr-11.0.19` branch, including a successful CI build. I also verfied that
the native WebKit code is identical to mainline jfx after applying all patches
(excluding a couple of copyright years).
-
Commit mes
Clean backport. Tested in connection with 4 other WebKit fixes in the
`test-kcr-11.0.19` branch, including a successful CI build. I also verfied that
the native WebKit code is identical to mainline jfx after applying all patches
(excluding a couple of copyright years).
-
Commit mes
Clean backport. Tested in connection with 4 other WebKit fixes in the
`test-kcr-11.0.19` branch, including a successful CI build. I also verfied that
the native WebKit code is identical to mainline jfx after applying all patches
(excluding a couple of copyright years).
-
Commit mes
Clean backport. Tested in connection with 4 other WebKit fixes in the
`test-kcr-11.0.19` branch, including a successful CI build. I also verfied that
the native WebKit code is identical to mainline jfx after applying all patches
(excluding a couple of copyright years).
-
Commit mes
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 14:11:24 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> Clean backport. Tested in connection with 4 other WebKit fixes in the
> `test-kcr-11.0.19` branch, including a successful CI build. I also verfied
> that the native WebKit code is identical to mainline jfx after applying all
> patches
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 14:11:24 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> Clean backport. Tested in connection with 4 other WebKit fixes in the
> `test-kcr-11.0.19` branch, including a successful CI build. I also verfied
> that the native WebKit code is identical to mainline jfx after applying all
> patches
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 14:10:59 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> Clean backport. Tested in connection with 4 other WebKit fixes in the
> `test-kcr-11.0.19` branch, including a successful CI build. I also verfied
> that the native WebKit code is identical to mainline jfx after applying all
> patches
Clean backport. Tested in connection with 3 other WebKit fixes in the
`test-kcr-17.0.7` branch, including a successful CI build. I also verfied that
the native WebKit code is identical to mainline jfx after applying all patches
(excluding a couple of copyright years).
-
Commit mess
Clean backport. Tested in connection with 3 other WebKit fixes in the
`test-kcr-17.0.7` branch, including a successful CI build. I also verfied that
the native WebKit code is identical to mainline jfx after applying all patches
(excluding a couple of copyright years).
-
Commit mess
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 14:11:05 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> Clean backport. Tested in connection with 4 other WebKit fixes in the
> `test-kcr-11.0.19` branch, including a successful CI build. I also verfied
> that the native WebKit code is identical to mainline jfx after applying all
> patches
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 14:11:14 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> Clean backport. Tested in connection with 4 other WebKit fixes in the
> `test-kcr-11.0.19` branch, including a successful CI build. I also verfied
> that the native WebKit code is identical to mainline jfx after applying all
> patches
Clean backport. Tested in connection with 3 other WebKit fixes in the
`test-kcr-17.0.7` branch, including a successful CI build. I also verfied that
the native WebKit code is identical to mainline jfx after applying all patches
(excluding a couple of copyright years).
-
Commit mess
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 14:11:24 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> Clean backport. Tested in connection with 4 other WebKit fixes in the
> `test-kcr-11.0.19` branch, including a successful CI build. I also verfied
> that the native WebKit code is identical to mainline jfx after applying all
> patches
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 14:11:31 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> Clean backport. Tested in connection with 4 other WebKit fixes in the
> `test-kcr-11.0.19` branch, including a successful CI build. I also verfied
> that the native WebKit code is identical to mainline jfx after applying all
> patches
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 14:42:41 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> Clean backport. Tested in connection with 3 other WebKit fixes in the
> `test-kcr-17.0.7` branch, including a successful CI build. I also verfied
> that the native WebKit code is identical to mainline jfx after applying all
> patches (
Clean backport. Tested in connection with 3 other WebKit fixes in the
`test-kcr-17.0.7` branch, including a successful CI build. I also verfied that
the native WebKit code is identical to mainline jfx after applying all patches
(excluding a couple of copyright years).
-
Commit mess
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 14:42:57 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> Clean backport. Tested in connection with 3 other WebKit fixes in the
> `test-kcr-17.0.7` branch, including a successful CI build. I also verfied
> that the native WebKit code is identical to mainline jfx after applying all
> patches (
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 14:43:08 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> Clean backport. Tested in connection with 3 other WebKit fixes in the
> `test-kcr-17.0.7` branch, including a successful CI build. I also verfied
> that the native WebKit code is identical to mainline jfx after applying all
> patches (
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 14:43:18 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> Clean backport. Tested in connection with 3 other WebKit fixes in the
> `test-kcr-17.0.7` branch, including a successful CI build. I also verfied
> that the native WebKit code is identical to mainline jfx after applying all
> patches (
On 11/02/2023 06:31, Michael Strauß wrote:
I think that we are conflating two distinct questions in this discussion:
1. The first question is whether a listener that is registered on an
ObservableValue should prevent the ObservableValue from being eligible
for garbage collection.
This should
21 matches
Mail list logo
