more bugzilla patches

Talk about code development, features, specific bugs, enhancements, patches, and similar 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 bugs, git, the repositories, 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. Please post issues with specific websites, extensions, etc. in the relevant boards for those topics.

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: 35647
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE

Re: more bugzilla patches

Unread 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.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35647
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE

Re: more bugzilla patches

Unread 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.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite