Bugzilla

I ran mozregression to determine when the dupe-bug's described issue first occurred, and it seems to have been regressed by bug 1700379, specifically https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/029a5e8fa8f3 .

That's not entirely surprising; that bug had another similar-sounding regression filed (with clipped content and scaling), which was fixed via bug 1720621's patch.   That patch did get uplifted to 91esr; but unfortunately it did not address this pages-per-sheet issue that we've just uncovered (bug 1744724) -- that issue is fixed by the patch here instead.

Given the simplicity of the patch here (and followup bug 1722890): I tend to think we should uplift this (and bug 1722890) to ESR, to fix the dataloss issue discussed in bug 1744724 (which is a regression that was only introduced in Firefox 90 via bug 1700379).

Emily, does that sound reasonable to you? And would you mind doing the nomination, assuming you agree?

I ran mozregression to determine when the dupe-bug's described issue first occurred, and it seems to have been regressed by bug 1700379, specifically https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/029a5e8fa8f3 .

That's not entirely surprising; that bug had another similar-sounding regression filed (with clipped content and scaling), which was fixed via bug 1720621's patch.   That patch did get uplifted to 91esr; but unfortunately it did not address this pages-per-sheet issue that we've just uncovered (bug 1744724) -- that issue is fixed by the patch here instead.

Given the simplicity of the patch here (and followup bug 1722890): I tend to think we should uplift this (and bug 1722890) to ESR, to fix the dataloss issue discussed in bug 1744724 (which is a regression that was only introduced in Firefox 90 via bug 1700379).

Emily, does that sound reasonable to you? And would you mind doing the uplift-nominations, assuming you agree?

I ran mozregression to determine when the dupe-bug's described issue first occurred, and it seems to have been regressed by bug 1700379, specifically https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/029a5e8fa8f3 .

That's not entirely surprising; that bug had another similar-sounding regression filed (with scaled content being clipped), which was fixed via bug 1720621's patch.   That patch did get uplifted to 91esr; but unfortunately it did not address this pages-per-sheet issue that we've just uncovered (bug 1744724) -- that issue is fixed by the patch here instead.

Given the simplicity of the patch here (and followup bug 1722890): I tend to think we should uplift this (and bug 1722890) to ESR, to fix the dataloss issue discussed in bug 1744724 (which is a regression that was only introduced in Firefox 90 via bug 1700379).

Emily, does that sound reasonable to you? And would you mind doing the uplift-nominations, assuming you agree?

I ran mozregression to determine when the dupe-bug's described issue first occurred, and it seems to have been regressed by bug 1700379, specifically https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/029a5e8fa8f3 .

That's not entirely surprising; that bug had another similar-sounding regression filed (with scaled content being clipped), which was fixed via bug 1720621's patch.   **That** patch did get uplifted to 91esr; but unfortunately it did not address this pages-per-sheet issue that we've just uncovered (bug 1744724) -- that issue is fixed by the patch here instead.

Given the simplicity of the patch here (and followup bug 1722890): I tend to think we should uplift this (and bug 1722890) to ESR, to fix the dataloss issue discussed in bug 1744724 (which is a regression that was only introduced in Firefox 90 via bug 1700379).

Emily, does that sound reasonable to you? And would you mind doing the uplift-nominations, assuming you agree?

I ran mozregression to determine when the dupe-bug's described issue first occurred, and it seems to have been regressed by bug 1700379, specifically https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/029a5e8fa8f3 .

That's not entirely surprising; that bug had another similar-sounding regression filed (with scaled content being clipped), which was fixed via bug 1720621's patch.   **That** patch did get uplifted to 91esr; but unfortunately it did not address this pages-per-sheet issue that we've just uncovered (bug 1744724) -- that issue is fixed by the patch here instead.

Given the simplicity of the patch here (and followup bug 1722890): I tend to think we should uplift this (and the followup) to ESR, to fix the dataloss issue discussed in bug 1744724 (which is a regression that was only introduced in Firefox 90 via bug 1700379).

Emily, does that sound reasonable to you? And would you mind doing the uplift-nominations, assuming you agree?

I ran mozregression to determine when the dupe-bug's described issue first occurred, and it seems to have been regressed by bug 1700379, specifically https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/029a5e8fa8f3 .

That's not entirely surprising; that bug had another similar-sounding regression filed (with scaled content being clipped), which was fixed via bug 1720621's patch.   **That** patch did get uplifted to 91esr; but unfortunately it did not address this pages-per-sheet issue that we've just uncovered (bug 1744724) -- that issue is fixed by the patch here instead.

Given the simplicity of the patch here (and followup bug 1722890): I tend to think we should uplift this (and the followup) to ESR, to fix the dataloss issue discussed in bug 1744724 (which is a regression that was newly introduced in Firefox 90 via bug 1700379).

Emily, does that sound reasonable to you? And would you mind doing the uplift-nominations, assuming you agree?