Hi, Am Freitag, den 03.09.2010, 11:36 +0300 schrieb Oren Held: > On 09/03/2010 12:13 AM, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > I’m looking at this bug report, because it is in the list of release > > critical bug. Do you really think the bug is serious (and not just > > important). Rephrased: If this bug is not fixed, is Debian better with > > the buggy guake, or should it really be removed? > > That's a good question. The bug is pretty serious on my Debian laptop - > as long as it's focused I get to 100% cpu. However, on my Debian desktop > it works well (the big difference is x86_64 vs x86, but obviously there > might be other variables...). > > I've opened this bug in hope for getting more info from other users, > which might help to find the bug's cause and fix it. But as nobody had > yet responded, I'm starting to conclude that it's not a common case. > > In that case, it'll make sense to decrease its priority.
I have tested it here (T400, 64bit) and while I do observer a higher CPU usage, it does not seem critical to me. I also skimmed through the code but could not find some obvious cause. I’m downgrading this bug to make the Debian release look as if it a bit nearer. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
