John-Mark Bell wrote: > 3371 - I'm a little dubious about this, as it introduces a default "non > secure" setting for nsgtk. At the very least this needs > documenting somewhere obvious.
Indeed. It does however make such sites accessible, and is similar behaviour to other under-developed browsers. As the changelog says, the SSL window for GTK is high on the to do list. I'm fine with leaving this out if there is much complaint, however. > 3383 - This seems more like a feature addition, to me. I saw it as a trivial featurette that bought substantial usability benefits, but I'm happy for it to be left out. > 3392 - I'd leave this out, due to outstanding issues. Other than the ones already listed in the changelog? Just because a bug fix isn't feature complete yet doesn't mean it's not worthwhile :) > 3439 - What does this fix? (it's a trivial enough change that I don't care > either way; I'm just interested to know) Some GIF animations that have noise in the background, I seem to recall, as well as a general tidying that will be required for RSVG anyway. When I did this, I seem to recall checking what the RISC OS bitmap stuff did, and that it created blank transparent bitmaps. > 3478 - I think this should have a little more testing. It already > introduced one bug -- I'd rather not see more instability ;) I want this in. It fixes several long-standing and irritating bugs in nsgtk. We should test this change extensively if people have complaint. I won't be easy to move on this issue. > 3479 - I'd like some clarification on this; I see no need for it atm. We can leave this out if we revert 3482 and check in two separate fixes. >> John-Mark's original posting advocated the following changes, which were >> agreed to: >> >> 3299, 3304, 3305, 3306, 3307, 3311, 3312, 3317, 3318, 3322, 3323, 3324, >> 3325, 3328, 3335, 3337, and 3314 (from RUfl, PS printer driver fix.) > > WRT 3330->3334, which were excluded in that mail due to a lack of testing; > I'm not aware of any outstanding fetch-related bugs (and am only aware of > it introducing one, which was fixed some time ago). Therefore, I'm happy > to remove my objection wrt merging these changes into the stable branch. OK. B.
