(In reply to comment #39)
> The one attached to bug 591503 is not from running the app with --sync and
> doesn't have enough information to confirm it is the same bug.
I've attached a new back trace to bug 591503 running with --sync
(I don't know if it's relevant) In your back trace, the nsView destructor is called by nsIView::Destroy (frames #14 - #15), whereas in mine, the nsView destructor is called by the nsScrollPortView destructor (frames #21 - #22).
> Neither. This bug will track the status on 1.9.1 branch until the
> status-1.9.1 flag changes.
If I understand correctly, "status1.9.2: beta3-fixed" means this bug was fixed for gecko 1.9.2 in version beta-3. Is that correct?
And when (one can dream, right?) it is fixed for gecko 1.9.1, the status will be changed to something like "status1.9.1: 13-fixed" ?
RESOLVED FIXED only means the bug is fixed on the trunk?
(In reply to comment #39)
> The one attached to bug 591503 is not from running the app with --sync and
> doesn't have enough information to confirm it is the same bug.
I've attached a new back trace to bug 591503 running with --sync
(I don't know if it's relevant) In your back trace, the nsView destructor is called by nsIView::Destroy (frames #14 - #15), whereas in mine, the nsView destructor is called by the nsScrollPortView destructor (frames #21 - #22).
> Neither. This bug will track the status on 1.9.1 branch until the
> status-1.9.1 flag changes.
If I understand correctly, "status1.9.2: beta3-fixed" means this bug was fixed for gecko 1.9.2 in version beta-3. Is that correct?
And when (one can dream, right?) it is fixed for gecko 1.9.1, the status will be changed to something like "status1.9.1: 13-fixed" ?
RESOLVED FIXED only means the bug is fixed on the trunk?