https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=125641
Telesto <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEEDINFO |RESOLVED Keywords|bibisectRequest, perf | --- Comment #7 from Telesto <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Stéphane Guillou (stragu) from comment #6) > I also get a huge slowdown and lag with the example file in OOo 3.3. > Telesto, any reason why this shouldn't be a duplicate of bug 61558? It's a duplicate of bug 125619. Is bug 125619 being a duplicate of bug 61558? I don't really know. Based on my vague recollection, not testing.... There is a difference between a calc document with lots of comments, but hidden. And a document with lots of comments with those comments all visible (expanded) Both slow but maybe a different cause. There is difference between scrolling before and after save and a good state. at bug 125619, but might be simply the old problem uncovered in different way? Or the perf was omni-present in 3.3.0, problem got resolved for this case by incident or on purpose, but got re-introduced for different reason? The slowness of this bug and bug 125619 could also be explained by bug 131675 (still present?).. different perspective on the same problem or a third separate issue exacerbating the problems Sidenote I tend to assume multiple bugs being chased with the end-user effect colliding (slow scrolling), except proven otherwise. I personally dislike marking things duplicates easily. It might hide that multiple issues exists. And a bug report becoming a real mess, if multiple reports start te comment on their own bug case, and the cause being different. And rechecking duplicates - if those being true duplicates - after a fix isn't done on a regular bases either. Ideally (often) you don't need to - it's a waste of time - duplicates being true duplicate *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 125619 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
