more bugzilla patches

Talk about code development, features, specific bugzilla bugs, enhancements, patches, and other highly technical things.
Forum rules
Please keep everything here strictly on-topic.
This board is meant for Pale Moon source code development related subjects only like code snippets, patches, specific referenced Bugzilla bugs, mercurial, etc.

This is not for tech support! Please do not post tech support questions in the "Development" board!
Please make sure not to use this board for support questions. Most "bug reports" do not belong in this board and should initially be posted in Community Support or other relevant support boards.

Please keep things on-topic as this forum will be used for reference for Pale Moon development. Expect topics that aren't relevant as such to be moved or deleted.
User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 25777
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: 58°2'16"N 14°58'31"E
Contact:

Re: more bugzilla patches

Post by Moonchild » 2020-01-16, 12:01

@win7-7 I've made a tracking issue for this on UXP Issue #1355 (UXP); if you want to make individual pull requests against it with commits following the preferred description style:

Code: Select all

Issue #1355 - {Description goes here}
with further details in the actual pull request (e.g. what the change does in detail and/or how it's been tested, and any reference to the BZ bug you want there), then that would be awesome :)
See other recent commits for examples of the preferred commit description style.
If you commit changes that apply directly (no code changes needed to apply) then please preserve the author field of the original Mozilla commit.
"There will be times when the position you advocate, no matter how well framed and supported, will not be accepted by the public simply because you are who you are." -- Merrill Rose
Image

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 25777
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: 58°2'16"N 14°58'31"E
Contact:

Re: more bugzilla patches

Post by Moonchild » 2020-02-16, 20:40

win7-7 wrote:
2020-01-15, 17:53
Moonchild could you check if 1409114 is viable for UXP if you have time?
A casual inspection tells me that it -should- be viable but you'd have to look closely at what we have, what the intent of each part is and if it can be ported (which is something i can't do with a casual inspection). Since this basically completely reorders the way display lists are created, it needs very careful implementation and lots of testing.
"There will be times when the position you advocate, no matter how well framed and supported, will not be accepted by the public simply because you are who you are." -- Merrill Rose
Image

Post Reply