> -----Original Message----- > From: george.greenfi...@tiscali.co.uk > Sent: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:22:05 GMT > To: netsurf-users@netsurf-browser.org > Subject: RE: Thetrainline.com crashes CI #744 > > In message <ae9c0b0201f.00000e9fd...@davehigton.me.uk> > Dave Higton <d...@davehigton.me.uk> wrote: > >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: george.greenfi...@tiscali.co.uk >>> Sent: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:20:59 GMT >>> To: netsurf-users@netsurf-browser.org >>> Subject: Thetrainline.com crashes CI #744 >>> >>> Made three consecutive attempts to access Thetrainline.com using NS CI >>> #744 with javascript enabled, each resulting in a NS crash and exit. >>> Attempting to access the bug tracker and file a bug report crashed >>> #744 again! Back to 2.9 for the bug report.... >> >> I found that disabling Javascript on 744 enabled me to submit my >> bug report (with file), which is easier than uninstalling etc. >> >> The quick smoke tests I've done with 744 with JS disabled don't show >> any worse stability than versions prior to JS. >> >> There are also non-JS CI builds, if you prefer. > > Don't get me wrong: I intended no criticism of JS-enabled NetSurf, in > fact I think it's splendid, and to be supported in every way, > including the submission of bug reports where appropriate. It was just > a bit ironic that the bug tracker itself was amongst the casualties!
Absolutely, and I'm sure you've seen my message of heartfelt congratulations to everybody who contributed. All I was doing was pointing out that, if you're testing a JS build of NS, you shouldn't have to revert to 2.9 to report the bug; simply disabling JS may well be enough. It's easier for you, and to continue with a CI build would give it that bit more testing. Dave ____________________________________________________________ FREE ONLINE PHOTOSHARING - Share your photos online with your friends and family! Visit http://www.inbox.com/photosharing to find out more!
