Follow up from bug 429721 comment 8: <quote> If that patch really works we should be able to undo the patch from bug 301119 right? Would be nice to understand what's changed... Did the fix for bug 342485 make the fix for bug 301119 unnecessary? </quote>
Uh... The patch from bug 301119 is what's allowing the patch from bug 429721 to work, no? That is, but 301119 allowed using a chrome:// URI for the favicon, but not one bothered to actually use one till now. That is, I think this bug is invalid. Five minutes of testing using the tests from bug 429721 should confirm, I should think.
(In reply to comment #1) > Uh... The patch from bug 301119 is what's allowing the patch from bug 429721 > to work, no? Er, yes, I guess it does. I misread the patch in bug 301119 and didn't realize that the change in bug 429721 was affecting about:neterror (which is specifically what the patch in bug 301119 adds a workaround for). I wonder why the patch in bug 229737 didn't make use of the one in bug 301119, given that the latter landed first...
So is this bug invalid?
(In reply to comment #2) > I wonder why the patch in bug 229737 didn't make use of the one in bug 301119, > given that the latter landed first... Agreed: bug 229737 landed on 2005-08-24/core and 2005-08-29/xpfe; bug 301119 landed in 2005-08-08/toolkit and 2008-05-28/suite. But: bug 429721 have fixed that on 2008-04-22/core. *** V.Invalid, per comment 1 and comment 3.