(In reply to Arthur K. (he/him) from comment #61) > (In reply to Wayne Mery (:wsmwk) from comment #60) > > (In reply to Arthur K. (he/him) from comment #59) > > > Is this looking any better since 102.x? > > > > All the dependencies have been fixed. But I think everyone here is gone. > > > > Several other bug reports mention async https://mzl.la/3ZCsEw1 > > Probably safe to close this WFM? I am not convinced this is WFM. I believe issue are still present I will test in recent beta and report back few patches have been pushed recently in other bug reports (jank related and number.of.network request related) which may have improved the performence. TBC.
Bug 412914 Comment 62 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
(In reply to Arthur K. (he/him) from comment #61) > (In reply to Wayne Mery (:wsmwk) from comment #60) > > (In reply to Arthur K. (he/him) from comment #59) > > > Is this looking any better since 102.x? > > > > All the dependencies have been fixed. But I think everyone here is gone. > > > > Several other bug reports mention async https://mzl.la/3ZCsEw1 > > Probably safe to close this WFM? I am not convinced this is WFM. I believe issue are still present I will test in recent beta and report back few patches have been pushed recently in other bug reports (jank related and number of network requests related) which may have improved the performence. TBC.