One I believe to be an upstream bug, and the other is just a place holder to remind me to get the latest translations from babelzilla.org before the final release.
So, as linked above, here's the first release candidate for Greasemonkey version 0.9.0. Please note that it is marked for Firefox 4 compatibility, so that it can be tested, but Firefox 4 compatibility IS INCOMPLETE. Barring any big issues brought up, I'd expect the 0.9.0 release to include a few more translations, and a lower max version compatibility flag (either 3.6.* or 4.0b7, I'm not yet sure which).
Please check that list before reporting any Firefox 4 related issues. Otherwise, we're generally very interested in hearing any feeedback, positive or negative. The -dev list is the best place to discuss Greasemonkey's development.
I don’t know if this is the right place to ask this but I haven’t been
able to find anything about this anywhere else. My question is whether
it is by design that there is no possibility of adding custom includes
and excludes to installed scripts in Firefox 4 as it was in Firefox
3.6 with Greasemonkey 0.8. I’ve looked into some bugs on Github,
particularly bug 1140, but I haven’t understood why this is described
as not a regression. I think that this was a functionality that was
there before and now it isn’t there so why is it not a regression? As
I understand, there were some problems with this functionality or
something and that is the reason why it has been removed. Could you
please tell me what they were? For me everything had always been
working fine, all “factory” includes and excludes as well as my custom
ones for all the scripts, and also across the updates of the scripts
from userscripts.org.
I've been out of the loop for a while so probably best to verify this yourself, but IIRC there has been an update that allows you to modify the header block (includes/exclude/resource/require etc) directly in the script and changes take effect on the following pageloads.
Instinctively I suspect having a UI for this would be useful for people who are not comfortable editing the code directly though.
On 11/30/10, josefec <jara.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don’t know if this is the right place to ask this but I haven’t been > able to find anything about this anywhere else. My question is whether > it is by design that there is no possibility of adding custom includes > and excludes to installed scripts in Firefox 4 as it was in Firefox > 3.6 with Greasemonkey 0.8. I’ve looked into some bugs on Github, > particularly bug 1140, but I haven’t understood why this is described > as not a regression. I think that this was a functionality that was > there before and now it isn’t there so why is it not a regression? As > I understand, there were some problems with this functionality or > something and that is the reason why it has been removed. Could you > please tell me what they were? For me everything had always been > working fine, all “factory” includes and excludes as well as my custom > ones for all the scripts, and also across the updates of the scripts > from userscripts.org.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "greasemonkey-users" group. > To post to this group, send email to greasemonkey-users@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > greasemonkey-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/greasemonkey-users?hl=en.
> I've been out of the loop for a while so probably best to verify this > yourself, but IIRC there has been an update that allows you to modify > the header block (includes/exclude/resource/require etc) directly in > the script and changes take effect on the following pageloads.
Correct. You can (and must, if you wish to change it) just edit the script now.
> Instinctively I suspect having a UI for this would be useful for > people who are not comfortable editing the code directly though.
As best we could tell, very few people in general change includes/excludes. Our decision was basically that the cleaner UI (without it in your face) was a gain for more people than the just barely more complicated process of editing the file is a loss for those that need to learn it.
Oh wow. This is a good change. (changing Include/exclude dynamically)
Anyway, is anyone else seeing some weird problems with this new
Greasemonkey?
- Many times, after clicking a script URL, the "Install" button or
'Show script source" button just don't do anything. The dialog box
stays there unless we click Cancel.
- Is there a new requirement that we have to restart after
uninstalling a script? If I uninstall a script, and say re-install
it(if I don't see the above problem), it doesn't acknowledge to have
installed it. Though if I restart after uninstalling and then install,
it works fine.
- Could there be an ability to just 'type to the script name' in the
script management section rather than searching by scrolling - This
used to be the case in the old (or stable) GreaseMonkey. I hope you
get what I mean.
Thanks,
Piyush
On Nov 30, 8:03 am, Anthony Lieuallen <arant...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've been out of the loop for a while so probably best to verify this
> > yourself, but IIRC there has been an update that allows you to modify
> > the header block (includes/exclude/resource/require etc) directly in
> > the script and changes take effect on the following pageloads.
> Correct. You can (and must, if you wish to change it) just edit the
> script now.
> > Instinctively I suspect having a UI for this would be useful for
> > people who are not comfortable editing the code directly though.
> As best we could tell, very few people in general change
> includes/excludes. Our decision was basically that the cleaner UI
> (without it in your face) was a gain for more people than the just
> barely more complicated process of editing the file is a loss for those
> that need to learn it.
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Piyush Soni <piyushs...@gmail.com> wrote: > - Is there a new requirement that we have to restart after > uninstalling a script? If I uninstall a script, and say re-install > it(if I don't see the above problem), it doesn't acknowledge to have > installed it. Though if I restart after uninstalling and then install, > it works fine.
You don't need to restart, you need to close the add-ons window. You have the option to undo the uninstall (in case it was an accident) until you close the window (/tab in Firefox 4).
On the other hand, I have no idea what happens if you "start" an uninstall, don't close the window, and then install the same script again. That might be a bug.
> - Could there be an ability to just 'type to the script name' in the > script management section rather than searching by scrolling - This > used to be the case in the old (or stable) GreaseMonkey. I hope you > get what I mean.
In Firefox 4, you can use the built in add-on search mechanism. I'm personally not motivated to build our own search for Firefox 3, given that you get it for free once 4 is released. (This was much discussed, earlier, and I agreed then that it was good. But now that I know it's built in in the future, not so much.)
> As best we could tell, very few people in general change
> includes/excludes. Our decision was basically that the cleaner UI
> (without it in your face) was a gain for more people than the just
> barely more complicated process of editing the file is a loss for those
> that need to learn it.
Well. It wouldn’t be a problem for me, editing the script directly,
but what I really don’t like is that when you update the script, you
have to do edit it again and again. Or if you forget, your settings
are lost. Editing the script before every update and copying my own
includes/exludes, then updating and then pasting it back… This is
quite annoying.
I think I was not clear enough. I was talking about Firefox 4 and GM
0.9 only. In FF 3 and GM 0.8.*, I did not need to search. In GM 0.8
you can just click once anywhere in the scripts list at the left, and
start typing the name of script you know. It will go to that script
just by virtue of it being in a standard Win32 Control. For example if
I have two scripts name starting with "Better ToodleDo" & "Better
XYZ" , as soon as I type keys B-E-T-T-E-R, it should focus my Toodledo
script, and if I continue typing 'X', it should focus on the Better
XYZ script. Very handy for large no. of scripts.
In GM 0.9.*, doing that doesn't work, may be it's more of a FF problem
as you utilize their extensions UI?(don't know much)
Also, the search you mentioned does find a script in FF 4.0, but then
you can't edit it if you right click. It only shows the 'Show More
Information', & Remove, Disable menu items and buttons.
Also, is no one else seeing the first problem? When I install a script
and re-install newer version after making modifications, very soon the
'Install' button stops working. If I go on to delete all the stale
'numbered' folders of the script, it immediately works again.
On Nov 30, 10:00 pm, Anthony Lieuallen <arant...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Piyush Soni <piyushs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > - Is there a new requirement that we have to restart after
> > uninstalling a script? If I uninstall a script, and say re-install
> > it(if I don't see the above problem), it doesn't acknowledge to have
> > installed it. Though if I restart after uninstalling and then install,
> > it works fine.
> You don't need to restart, you need to close the add-ons window. You have
> the option to undo the uninstall (in case it was an accident) until you
> close the window (/tab in Firefox 4).
> On the other hand, I have no idea what happens if you "start" an uninstall,
> don't close the window, and then install the same script again. That might
> be a bug.
> > - Could there be an ability to just 'type to the script name' in the
> > script management section rather than searching by scrolling - This
> > used to be the case in the old (or stable) GreaseMonkey. I hope you
> > get what I mean.
> In Firefox 4, you can use the built in add-on search mechanism. I'm
> personally not motivated to build our own search for Firefox 3, given that
> you get it for free once 4 is released. (This was much discussed, earlier,
> and I agreed then that it was good. But now that I know it's built in in
> the future, not so much.)
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Piyush Soni <piyushs...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also, the search you mentioned does find a script in FF 4.0, but then > you can't edit it if you right click. It only shows the 'Show More > Information', & Remove, Disable menu items and buttons.
> Also, is no one else seeing the first problem? When I install a script > and re-install newer version after making modifications, very soon the > 'Install' button stops working. If I go on to delete all the stale > 'numbered' folders of the script, it immediately works again.
The phrase "re-install newer version after making modifications" makes me think you're doing something wrong. You don't need to re-install a Greasemonkey script to modify it: just edit it in place, and the new version will be run on the next loaded page.
No, when I say 're-install newer version after making modifications',
I really mean re-install. I work from multiple locations and just
upload the latest version to the userscripts.org website. When I come
home, I just click on the 'Install' Link there without uninstalling it
first. Seems GreaseMonkey creates another folder in that case by
appending a counter. I have seen problems when there are a few of
those lying around, and when I decide to first uninstall one and then
re-install it(I don't remember if I really close the extensions page
or not). The 'Install' button on the dialog, as well as the 'Show
Script source' button do nothing after clicking. Only the cancel
works. When I go and delete all those old folders, it works again. I
don't have the exact steps to reproduce, but it is on these lines and
I'm certainly not dreaming or something. :). I will repost if I find
the specific steps and see the source as well when it fails.
Thanks,
Piyush
On Dec 5, 4:13 pm, Anthony Lieuallen <arant...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Piyush Soni <piyushs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Also, the search you mentioned does find a script in FF 4.0, but then
> > you can't edit it if you right click. It only shows the 'Show More
> > Information', & Remove, Disable menu items and buttons.
> > Also, is no one else seeing the first problem? When I install a script
> > and re-install newer version after making modifications, very soon the
> > 'Install' button stops working. If I go on to delete all the stale
> > 'numbered' folders of the script, it immediately works again.
> The phrase "re-install newer version after making modifications" makes me
> think you're doing something wrong. You don't need to re-install a
> Greasemonkey script to modify it: just edit it in place, and the new version
> will be run on the next loaded page.
I suspect 're-install a new version' means 'install a script that is currently installed that has an official version higher than the one currently installed' or '(re)install a script that is already installed, overwriting any changes ive made with this version instead' rather than its literal sense.
On 12/5/10, Anthony Lieuallen <arant...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Piyush Soni <piyushs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Also, the search you mentioned does find a script in FF 4.0, but then >> you can't edit it if you right click. It only shows the 'Show More >> Information', & Remove, Disable menu items and buttons.
>> Also, is no one else seeing the first problem? When I install a script >> and re-install newer version after making modifications, very soon the >> 'Install' button stops working. If I go on to delete all the stale >> 'numbered' folders of the script, it immediately works again.
> The phrase "re-install newer version after making modifications" makes me > think you're doing something wrong. You don't need to re-install a > Greasemonkey script to modify it: just edit it in place, and the new version > will be run on the next loaded page.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "greasemonkey-users" group. > To post to this group, send email to greasemonkey-users@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > greasemonkey-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/greasemonkey-users?hl=en.
This seems like a critical blocker, to me. If this is an intentional change, users need to be made aware of it at install-time somehow.
Losing all of your preferences for a script can be an incredible setback in terms of time. I've spent many hours tuning preferences for specific sites - to have them wiped out simply due to upgrading is atrocious.
> One I believe to be an upstream bug, and the other is just a place holder to > remind me to get the latest translations from babelzilla.org before the > final release.
> So, as linked above, here's the first release candidate for Greasemonkey > version 0.9.0. Please note that it is marked for Firefox 4 compatibility, > so that it can be tested, but Firefox 4 compatibility IS INCOMPLETE. > Barring any big issues brought up, I'd expect the 0.9.0 release to include a > few more translations, and a lower max version compatibility flag (either > 3.6.* or 4.0b7, I'm not yet sure which).
> Please check that list before reporting any Firefox 4 related issues. > Otherwise, we're generally very interested in hearing any feeedback, > positive or negative. The -dev list is the best place to discuss > Greasemonkey's development.
On 2010-12-22 7:40 AM, Jay Rossiter / Signe wrote:
> Crossposting from greasemonkey-dev:
Please don't. The -dev list is where discussion of the development of core greasemonkey happens, and is where bugs should be discussed. As I said in the original message which you quoted:
With a normal bug, I wouldn't, but since you announced this test build on -users, I felt that anyone using it might want to be aware of a critical issue.
On 12/22/2010 8:08 AM, Anthony Lieuallen wrote:
> On 2010-12-22 7:40 AM, Jay Rossiter / Signe wrote: >> Crossposting from greasemonkey-dev:
> Please don't. The -dev list is where discussion of the development of > core greasemonkey happens, and is where bugs should be discussed. As I > said in the original message which you quoted:
>> The -dev list is the best place to discuss Greasemonkey's >> development.
> One I believe to be an upstream bug, and the other is just a place
> holder to remind me to get the latest translations from babelzilla.org
> before the final release.
> So, as linked above, here's the first release candidate for Greasemonkey
> version 0.9.0. Please note that it is marked for Firefox 4
> compatibility, so that it can be tested, but Firefox 4 compatibility IS
> INCOMPLETE. Barring any big issues brought up, I'd expect the 0.9.0
> release to include a few more translations, and a lower max version
> compatibility flag (either 3.6.* or 4.0b7, I'm not yet sure which).
> Please check that list before reporting any Firefox 4 related issues.
> Otherwise, we're generally very interested in hearing any feeedback,
> positive or negative. The -dev list is the best place to discuss
> Greasemonkey's development.
Generally speaking, I'm more than satisfied with the 0.9 RC1 - it
seems to work without any apparent problems in FF4b8. There remains
one issue though that I would like to address and it is of ergonomical
character: at the moment, Greasemonkey is reachable via a small icon
in the add-on-bar only. I would like to be able to rearrange the GM
icon just like I can do with NoScript and Adblock++ icons (they seem
to be of a different type since I can actually move them about by
drag'n'drop). Eventually, I'd like to disable the add-on-bar on the
bottom of my browser to save the screen-space and instead put all the
buttons I actually use somewhere near or in the address-bar. I don't
need all the status icons of Perspectives and so on but I do sometimes
need to activate or deactivate GM-scripts.
Thanks for all the work and hope to see it happening!
All the best!
On 28 Nov. 2010, 03:56, Anthony Lieuallen <arant...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One I believe to be an upstream bug, and the other is just a place
> holder to remind me to get the latest translations from babelzilla.org
> before the final release.
> So, as linked above, here's the first release candidate for Greasemonkey
> version 0.9.0. Please note that it is marked for Firefox 4
> compatibility, so that it can be tested, but Firefox 4 compatibility IS
> INCOMPLETE. Barring any big issues brought up, I'd expect the 0.9.0
> release to include a few more translations, and a lower max version
> compatibility flag (either 3.6.* or 4.0b7, I'm not yet sure which).
> Please check that list before reporting any Firefox 4 related issues.
> Otherwise, we're generally very interested in hearing any feeedback,
> positive or negative. The -dev list is the best place to discuss
> Greasemonkey's development.
-----Original Message-----
From: Philipp Krüger <p.a.c.krue...@googlemail.com>
Sender: greasemonkey-users@googlegroups.com
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:30:42 To: greasemonkey-users<greasemonkey-users@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: greasemonkey-users@googlegroups.com
Subject: [greasemonkey-users] Re: First Release Candidate for Greasemonkey 0.9.0
Generally speaking, I'm more than satisfied with the 0.9 RC1 - it
seems to work without any apparent problems in FF4b8. There remains
one issue though that I would like to address and it is of ergonomical
character: at the moment, Greasemonkey is reachable via a small icon
in the add-on-bar only. I would like to be able to rearrange the GM
icon just like I can do with NoScript and Adblock++ icons (they seem
to be of a different type since I can actually move them about by
drag'n'drop). Eventually, I'd like to disable the add-on-bar on the
bottom of my browser to save the screen-space and instead put all the
buttons I actually use somewhere near or in the address-bar. I don't
need all the status icons of Perspectives and so on but I do sometimes
need to activate or deactivate GM-scripts.
Thanks for all the work and hope to see it happening!
> One I believe to be an upstream bug, and the other is just a place
> holder to remind me to get the latest translations from babelzilla.org
> before the final release.
> So, as linked above, here's the first release candidate for Greasemonkey
> version 0.9.0. Please note that it is marked for Firefox 4
> compatibility, so that it can be tested, but Firefox 4 compatibility IS
> INCOMPLETE. Barring any big issues brought up, I'd expect the 0.9.0
> release to include a few more translations, and a lower max version
> compatibility flag (either 3.6.* or 4.0b7, I'm not yet sure which).
> Please check that list before reporting any Firefox 4 related issues.
> Otherwise, we're generally very interested in hearing any feeedback,
> positive or negative. The -dev list is the best place to discuss
> Greasemonkey's development.
> Thanks in advance!
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "greasemonkey-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to greasemonkey-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to greasemonkey-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greasemonkey-users?hl=en.
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Philipp Krüger <
p.a.c.krue...@googlemail.com> wrote: > .. at the moment, Greasemonkey is reachable via a small icon > in the add-on-bar only. .. Eventually, I'd like to disable the add-on-bar > on the > bottom of my browser ..
