Open
Bug 598267
Opened 14 years ago
Updated 2 years ago
Handle stalled tabs in some fashion for cascaded restore
Categories
(Firefox :: Session Restore, defect)
Firefox
Session Restore
Tracking
()
NEW
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
blocking2.0 | --- | - |
People
(Reporter: zpao, Unassigned)
References
Details
(Keywords: regression, Whiteboard: [softblocker])
Right now we don't handle stalled tabs at all. So we could get stuck loading a couple tabs and the rest of the session remains unloaded.
tabbrowser does this with a simple setTimeout, so we could do something like that...
http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/base/content/tabbrowser.xml#573
Reporter | ||
Updated•14 years ago
|
blocking2.0: --- → ?
Reporter | ||
Updated•14 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → paul
Updated•14 years ago
|
blocking2.0: ? → final+
Updated•14 years ago
|
blocking2.0: final+ → betaN+
Updated•14 years ago
|
Keywords: regression
Updated•14 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [softblocker]
Comment 1•14 years ago
|
||
Is there a good reason that this blocks betaN? If not, it should be moved over to final+.
(The fact that johnath retargetted this for betaN on Dec 15 tells me that there is a good reason, it just wasn't mentioned here.)
Whiteboard: [softblocker] → [softblocker][final?]
Comment 2•14 years ago
|
||
Session restore changes are historically regression prone, we should keep it betaN+.
Whiteboard: [softblocker][final?] → [softblocker]
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•14 years ago
|
||
Agreed on keeping it betaN.
If this ends up getting blocking-'ed, I think we should look at working on this for .x. Or just 5.
I haven't noticed any complaints and we'll load other tabs as selected even if one gets stalled. So in case somebody wants to make this a [hardblocker], I don't think we need to.
Comment 4•14 years ago
|
||
** PRODUCT DRIVERS PLEASE NOTE **
This bug is one of 19 being moved from blocking2.0:betaN+ to blocking2.0:- as we reached the endgame of Firefox 4. The rationale for the move is:
- the bug had been identified as a "soft" blocker which could be fixed in some follow up release
- the bug had been identified as one requiring beta coverage, thus is not appropriate for a ".x" stability & security release
The owner of the bug may wish to renominate for .x consideration.
blocking2.0: betaN+ → .x+
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•13 years ago
|
||
Nearly 2 years later and this hasn't become an issue.
Assignee: paul → nobody
Updated•2 years ago
|
Severity: normal → S3
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•