========
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/gaia-central/rev/156e4c02bba8
Author: Carsten Book -Tomcat- <cbook@mozilla.com>
Desc: Revert "Bug 943845 - [Gallery] There is a little delay between before rendering the images while panning. r=djf" for mochitest bustage
This reverts commit a1930cf9a47f1461e28305316517c114e1a681c2.
========
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/gaia-central/rev/be63dcb7ecc9
Author: Julien Wajsberg <felash@gmail.com>
Desc: Revert "Merge pull request #16866 from lightsofapollo/fix-bad-things"
Revert Bug 979435 because the network issue looks resolved.
This reverts commit 4b0e62c713d83a36d4db42556625a2bc2b44e3f2, reversing
changes made to 6781459a49642ca0eb7ec3e95667808d5d77b656.
========
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/gaia-central/rev/0784b81a26a1
Author: gitmai <mri@tid.es>
Desc: Merge pull request #15902 from gitmai/bug-959206-CC-DSDS-FTE-not-close-when-change-simcard
Bug 959206 - [CostControl] [DSDS] If device has two SIM cards inserted (...
r=salva
========
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/gaia-central/rev/d828ee28dcd4
Author: mai <mri@tid.es>
Desc: Bug 959206 - [CostControl] [DSDS] If device has two SIM cards inserted (one SIM not configured in cost control and other configured) always appear FTE in cost control
It's good practice to have default values for all preferences in all.js.
Otherwise some preference APIs throw exceptions and/or leave values
uninitialized. It also makes the preference show up in about:config.
Bug 875204 accidentally removed this line from all.js even though the
pref was not removed. (The pref was initially added in bug 780342.)
I've been wanting to remove this code for a while. I think this code is
problematic for three reasons:
(1) It's in the middle of code where it doesn't belong, and which ought
to be handling purely-style-system things. (This is blocking me
from reusing that code elsewhere, e.g., in bug 977991 and
bug 960465, both of which could use it in some form.)
(2) It defeats the optimization from bug 790505 whenever we do a
miniflush (in other words, whenever we have any style change,
whether or not it's related)
(3) It means the conditions for when we decide to ship a new set of
animation data to a layer doesn't cover all the cases the layer
needs it. In particular, we only run this miniflush code when we
have a currently running animation or transition that's running on
the compositor thread. On the other hand, the UpdateTransformLayer
style change handling in DoApplyRenderingChangeToTree depends on
whether the frame currently has a transform layer, which can
continue to be true for a bit after the animation stops. So if we
need to send animations to the layer because of a transform style
change that happens soon after an animation completes, our style
change handling will find the existing layer and call its
SetBaseTransformForNextTransaction method but never do anything
that triggers layer construction. The style throttling code, in
turn, will never stop doing main thread updates because the
animation generation on the layer is out-of-date, and these main
thread updates will keep the layer active, but they'll never show
up because the stale animation data overrides the new transform
that we've been setting. (At least, I think that's what was
happening; it makes sense to me and matches the behavior I was
observing. I didn't verify which main thread updates and which
layer updates were actually happening, though.)
This shows up, for example, in the animation in attachment 8384813
just halting at a corner if I'm careful not to disturb it. (I'm
testing on Linux, with both accelerated layers and OMT animations
explicitly enabled.)
I think there are probably some other things that can be removed as
followups to removing this code, because I think we made some boundary
conditions intentionally incorrect so that problem (3) above wouldn't be
as bad as it otherwise would have been.
