> (In the "why OOM here?" case, you can break on js_ReportOutOfMemory and look at Ok I change the title and I'll try to be clearer. > Attaching test case pages also helps immensely, since web sites change and have > the bug is actually clearly about the problem that keeps it from functioning. > think things should block FF3, please request blocking-1.9?, and make sure that > about the clarity of out-of-memory errors is seen as a real blocker.
> That might be the case for example, it's unlikely that a bug that says it's Polvi: 427164 is us returning the wrong error code, and 426131 is firebug-p3 - do they really need to be fixed before we can ship Firefox 3? We need bugs that describe the actual Firebug-blocking problem if they're going to get prioritized high enough to stop the release of FF3 - we are not going to be holding the FF3 release in order to get more detail into OOM error messages as an example. x release, probably because it's just about the quality of an error message. Of the deps marked on this bug, one is firebug-p3 ( bug 426131), one has no firebug prioritization at all and is rated "minor" ( bug 427164) and the last is about a lack of warning message detail ( bug 422137, in which you say that the lack of error detail is somehow corrupting memory?).
(In the "why OOM here?" case, you can break on js_ReportOutOfMemory and look at the native stack for clues similarly for JS_ReportError and other cases of strange errors.)
Attaching test case pages also helps immensely, since web sites change and have tons of moving parts. If you think things should block FF3, please request blocking-1.9?, and make sure that the bug is actually clearly about the problem that keeps it from functioning. That might be the case for example, it's unlikely that a bug that says it's about the clarity of out-of-memory errors is seen as a real blocker.
0 kommentar(er)
