No plans to change the version number scheme

211 views
Skip to first unread message

Alex Faaborg

unread,
Aug 23, 2011, 3:52:33 PM8/23/11
to dev-usability
Just in case this got lost amongst the many threads in progress: there are
no plans to adjust the version number. It will remain in its current place
in the about window, and we are going to continue with the current numbering
scheme.

An attribute of working entirely in the open is that we sometimes create
significant confusion as we discuss design work that is in progress.
However the bright side is that there is never a shortage of feedback :)

-Alex

Johnathan Nightingale

unread,
Aug 23, 2011, 4:32:58 PM8/23/11
to Alex Faaborg, dev-usability
On 2011-08-23, at 3:52 PM, Alex Faaborg wrote:

> Just in case this got lost amongst the many threads in progress: there are
> no plans to adjust the version number. It will remain in its current place
> in the about window, and we are going to continue with the current numbering
> scheme.

Thanks, Alex. It's really helpful to have your voice here.

> An attribute of working entirely in the open is that we sometimes create
> significant confusion as we discuss design work that is in progress.
> However the bright side is that there is never a shortage of feedback :)

I think this puts it quite well, if somewhat charitably. Threatening and insulting people is a kind of feedback I would be happy to see in short supply. There were more intelligent commenters here too, though, and I know it can be frustrating for them to see a discussion seeming to trend towards decision without due consideration of their concerns. That sucks. And I appreciate their (measured, grown up) attempts to be heard when they felt like we were making a mistake. We need that.

Having said that, and I hope you'll all forgive me for being engineering-centric in my viewpoint here: if it hasn't landed, it isn't decided. If it hasn't shipped, it isn't decided. If it has landed and shipped and you have new information, we want to hear it. We are not mindless nor careless in our views, and we want what's best for the web. All of us. It would help us to remember that more often, particularly when disagreeing with each other.

J

---
Johnathan Nightingale
Director of Firefox Engineering
joh...@mozilla.com

larissa stevenson

unread,
Aug 23, 2011, 4:59:34 PM8/23/11
to
On Aug 23, 3:52 pm, Alex Faaborg <faab...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Just in case this got lost amongst the many threads in progress: there are
> no plans to adjust the version number.  It will remain in its current place
> in the about window, and we are going to continue with the current numbering
> scheme.
>
> -Alex

Thanks for the clarification. Asa seemed to have been referring
unequivocally to a decision that had been made and finalized, rather
than a "design work in progress", when he posted on the original
thread:
"I don't think, and I believe the Firefox UX lead agrees with me, that
users need that information in the About dialog. That's why we're
removing it."
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.usability/browse_thread/thread/fe75ec92c02be934/e43d5c2558ade0f5

Ron Hunter

unread,
Aug 23, 2011, 5:08:51 PM8/23/11
to

The trouble with open development is that something proposed, as an
issue for discussion, can be seized upon and blown way out of
proportion. I am somewhat surprised that some of the comments made a
while back about 'forced updates' weren't jumped on. Or maybe they
were, and the people who saw them just fled like scared jackrabbits. We
can't know. Probably, in view of recent press, developers should
consider how users, who lurk around here, might react to a proposal, and
make sure everyone understands it is a proposal, not an established
fact, or 'direction'.

Alex Faaborg

unread,
Aug 23, 2011, 5:36:18 PM8/23/11
to larissa stevenson, dev-us...@lists.mozilla.org
"I don't think, and I believe the Firefox UX lead agrees with me, that
users need that information in the About dialog. That's why we're
removing it."

yeah, there was a miscommunication inside of the UX team, and Asa to his
credit, adamantly defended us. Someone on the UX team requested this
change, which is why Asa filed it. I really appreciate Asa giving us the
authority and deferring to our decision, but in this case we didn't have the
design sorted out enough ahead of time and we basically set him up. Had
this actually been a practical joke that the UX team was trying to play on
Asa, it would have been perfectly executed.

That's what I mean when I say significant confusion.

-Alex

> _______________________________________________
> dev-usability mailing list
> dev-us...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-usability
>

clay

unread,
Aug 23, 2011, 6:11:02 PM8/23/11
to

...now can we maybe discuss getting the full UA string back too?
<d&r>

Chris Ilias

unread,
Aug 23, 2011, 6:16:31 PM8/23/11
to
On 11-08-23 6:11 PM, clay wrote:
>
> ...now can we maybe discuss getting the full UA string back too?
> <d&r>

Why?

Adam Kowalczyk

unread,
Aug 23, 2011, 6:16:55 PM8/23/11
to
On 2011-08-23 21:52, Alex Faaborg wrote:
> Just in case this got lost amongst the many threads in progress: there are
> no plans to adjust the version number. It will remain in its current place
> in the about window, and we are going to continue with the current numbering
> scheme.

Could you please elaborate on the decision to preserve the current
numbering scheme? The idea to incorporate year in the version number was
an interesting proposal that seemed to enjoy a lot of support in the
community, as it could potentially alleviate some of the tension and
misunderstandings around the new release process.

- Adam

Alex Faaborg

unread,
Aug 23, 2011, 6:43:58 PM8/23/11
to Adam Kowalczyk, dev-us...@lists.mozilla.org
>
> Could you please elaborate on the decision to preserve the current
> numbering scheme?
>

Perhaps decision to preserve is a bit too strong, basically we aren't
changing the scheme right now (like, this week).

The idea to incorporate year in the version number was an interesting
> proposal


Yeah, I really like a time based version number as well (since it contains
meaning) and I think we should eventually switch over to using one.

-Alex

> ______________________________**_________________
> dev-usability mailing list
> dev-us...@lists.mozilla.**org <dev-us...@lists.mozilla.org>
> https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/dev-usability<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-usability>
>

Matt Brubeck

unread,
Aug 23, 2011, 6:51:40 PM8/23/11
to
On 08/23/2011 03:16 PM, Adam Kowalczyk wrote:
> Could you please elaborate on the decision to preserve the current
> numbering scheme? The idea to incorporate year in the version number was
> an interesting proposal that seemed to enjoy a lot of support in the
> community, as it could potentially alleviate some of the tension and
> misunderstandings around the new release process.

I'm open to date-based versioning and I know a lot of other Firefox
developers/designers/contributors also think it might be a good idea.
But personally I don't think we should do it yet, because:

1) If users keep noticing Firefox versions and updates at all, then we
have much bigger problems. For rapid release to serve our users well,
we must get to the point Chrome is at where only very attentive
developer-types even notice when the version changes, and 95-99% of
users don't even notice when an update is installed. This is why almost
no one is complaining about Chrome's versioning system.

Firefox is not there yet; we still have tons of work to do on add-on
compatibility and silent (by default) updates. When it gets there, then
the numbering scheme won't matter any more. Or if we can't get it
there, we'll have to change our process in much bigger ways than just
version numbering.

2) While there are also real practical causes of user pain associated
with rapid release, another cause of user pain is just the fact that
change is always confusing. Adding more change this early in the
process will make this part worse rather than better. I think we should
consider changing the version scheme, but not right away.

Since Firefox 12 is scheduled for mid-2012, that could be an ideal time
to switch from milestone- to date-based versions, if we decide to do so. :)

Ron Hunter

unread,
Aug 23, 2011, 7:37:37 PM8/23/11
to
On 8/23/2011 5:43 PM, Alex Faaborg wrote:
>>
>> Could you please elaborate on the decision to preserve the current
>> numbering scheme?
>>
>
> Perhaps decision to preserve is a bit too strong, basically we aren't
> changing the scheme right now (like, this week).
>
> The idea to incorporate year in the version number was an interesting
>> proposal
>
>
> Yeah, I really like a time based version number as well (since it contains
> meaning) and I think we should eventually switch over to using one.
>
> -Alex
>
>
>

As long as whatever method used stays in the About dialog....


Ron Hunter

unread,
Aug 23, 2011, 7:41:36 PM8/23/11
to


That's because Chrome updates silently, so users don't know that an
update has happened, unless they happen upon a new feature. I consider
this a negative factor as it doesn't make a user aware of the efforts
that have gone into the new features, nor does it highlight their
usefulness to the user. Most of the Firefox users I have heard from
consider Google's method a bit 'underhanded'. But then I deal with
power users, who are going to want control of updates, and want to know
but new features. I am sure that most users just really don't care.
I sincerely hope that Firefox doesn't become the browser of choice for
those who don't care...

clay

unread,
Aug 23, 2011, 9:08:58 PM8/23/11
to

Oh, I dunno... Perhaps because it's the quickest, easiest way to get a
bunch of information from a drone that wanders onto the support group
with an issue.

Although there are some who would rather flaunt their expertise sending
drone to places they never knew existed or cared to visit, just to dig
up the same info.

Personally, I think it just looks cool.

Peter Sinnott

unread,
Aug 24, 2011, 3:52:58 AM8/24/11
to

Not so sure about that :) but since we are talking about the UA I was
wondering if there are any plans to remove the version number from it?

Chris Ilias

unread,
Aug 24, 2011, 6:15:45 PM8/24/11
to

What makes you think it's the quickest easiest way?

Right now, I use this snippet to get more info from a user:

<quote>
We'll need some more info about your Firefox setup. Go to
Help-->Troubleshooting_Information, then click [Copy all to Clipboard].
Open a reply to this post, and go to Edit-->Paste to paste the info from
your Troubleshooting Information page.
</quote>

The 'copy to clipboard' function means you don't have to teach the user
how to select/copy text, plus you get more info than what the UA
provides. That's why the about:support page was created!

The only case where I think it would easier to get version/OS info is if
the user inadvertently provides it, like looking at their newsgroup
posting headers. But in that case, you're not getting it from the About
window anyway.

What about people who think the UA is version number?
<http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.firefox/msg/17146dc76ed33d77>
And of those people,
What about those you think "Mozilla 5.0" is the version number?
What about when an extension adds its own version info to the UA?
What about extensions that completely change the UA to something else?

JohnQPublic

unread,
Aug 25, 2011, 1:25:25 AM8/25/11
to
"Alex Faaborg" <faa...@mozilla.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.6964.13141291...@lists.mozilla.org...

That's good news about the "about" window. Almost everyone expects to see
their version number appear there, because most software uses that method
and location.

That's bad news about the version number scheme and flies in the face of
long tradition. Version numbers should be proportional to the significance
and extent of changes, so Firefox should probably be somewhere in the
3.7-4.2 range at present. The rapidfire 4-5-6-7-8... sequence is unpopular,
creates false expectations, and causes various problems.
--
JQP

Desiree

unread,
Aug 26, 2011, 1:26:59 AM8/26/11
to

"JohnQPublic" <J...@not.valid> wrote in message
news:sfSdnV12RJdQQcjT...@mozilla.org...

> "Alex Faaborg" <faa...@mozilla.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.6964.13141291...@lists.mozilla.org...
>
> That's bad news about the version number scheme and flies in the face of
> long tradition. Version numbers should be proportional to the significance
> and extent of changes, so Firefox should probably be somewhere in the
> 3.7-4.2 range at present. The rapidfire 4-5-6-7-8... sequence is
> unpopular,
> creates false expectations, and causes various problems.
> --
> JQP

Plus, it just causes Fx lovers to go to SeaMonkey where this insanity with
rapid versions is not happening. I hadn't used SeaMonkey since 2009 and I
just dusted it off and upgraded it to the latest version ( a nice 2.3.1). I
like it but I am missing a couple of Fx extensions that are not compatible
with this latest version. I realize SeaMonkey will be keeping pace with the
6 week Fx updates but the version numbers will be traditional ones. I did
have to disable SeaMonkey from identifying itself in UA as Firefox as it is
not Fx and should not identify as such.

As for Fx, I remain on 4.01 and have no intention of upgrading until Fx
reaches major, significant change. Then and only then will I upgrade...no
more than once or twice a year. Upcoming 7.0 (or is it 8?) where the memory
problems in 4 appear corrected, if true, will get me to upgrade but not for
any other reason as I haven't had 4 that long. SeaMonkey may issue minor
upgrades every six weeks to match Fx but I will ignore those also and wait
for a major upgrade which should only take place about once a year.


Ron Hunter

unread,
Aug 26, 2011, 4:33:42 AM8/26/11
to
Why, in your mind, is updating new features only once a year a good thing?
And is the concept of adding new features, and bug fixes, and security
fixes as often as feasible NOT a good thing in your mind? Why is 2.3.1
better than 3 or 4 or 5?
The good thing is that you do have the option to turn off the updates in
Firefox/TB if it makes you more comfortable, but the downside is that
you aren't protected against security exploits for up to a year. Check
the release notes, and you will see about 2000 bug fixes, feature adds,
and security fixes between FF5 and FF7. If you sit at 4, then there are
over 2000 fixes you don't have, until you decide to update.
Consider the pro and con.

David Tenser

unread,
Aug 26, 2011, 9:13:15 AM8/26/11
to Desiree
On 2011-08-26 07:26, Desiree wrote:
> Plus, it just causes Fx lovers to go to SeaMonkey where this insanity with
> rapid versions is not happening.

To base your decision on web browser on the version number scheme seems
pretty crazy to me -- especially if you are a "Firefox lover" :)

Ken Saunders

unread,
Aug 26, 2011, 9:22:09 AM8/26/11
to mozilla.de...@googlegroups.com, dev-usability
Well, I was accused of being a troll for Asa elsewhere, so I'll just say to him, awesome job man.
I could use you over here in Massachusetts Sunday to deflect flying debris.

Kudos to Mozilla too. I suspect that no will actually say thanks, they'll just pick a new or existing thing to bitch about.

Ken Saunders

unread,
Aug 26, 2011, 9:22:09 AM8/26/11
to dev-usability

Desiree

unread,
Aug 27, 2011, 6:38:36 AM8/27/11
to

"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:HKCdnXw5XeDGx8rT...@mozilla.org...
A bit of history is needed so you understand where I am coming from. I
started out with Netscape back in the late 90's (seldom used IE) on my first
computer. Then in 2001, someone convinced me to try tabbed browsing in
Mozilla browser (which I had not used before). I hated it. But I had agreed
to try it exclusively for three weeks before making a final decision. I was
hooked in 10 days. Mozilla had Tabbed Browser Extensions back then and that
extension became my all time favorite extension even to this day. I got
Phoenix browser also way back and somewhere along the way (don't remember
exactly what version) TBE became available for Phoenix/Firebird. So, I used
both those browsers and at Fx 1.5, I stopped upgrading because TBE did not
work well in Fx2. I had Fx2 on a virtual machine, and with the help of
someone at the old Extensions Mirror site, I was able to force TBE to work
on Fx2 with only a couple of errors at startup and some occasional crashing.
I didn't like Fx2 because of privacy issues on it that were not on 1.5. So,
I kept 1.5 on my Host machine and I did not stop using 1.5 (which I still
consider the best ever version of Fx) until I got Fx4 in March. (I kept Fx
1.5 and sometimes I still use it). I had to give up my beloved nView
Desktop manager software to be able to use Fx4. Horrific incompatibility
between them with almost constant crashing of Fx4 until I turned off nView
which meant I had to give up a great deal of functionality of my video card
but Piro's Tree Style Tabs worked in Fx4 great and I wanted that more than I
wanted Desktop Manager.

I tried Fx3 on another virtual machine and TBE, which Piro had finally
gotten rewritten for Fx3, worked only so-so and tree style tabs really had
problems. So, the reason I got Fx4 was because Piro said that the rewritten
TBE, in particular, Tree Style Tabs, worked well on Fx4. I was quite
disappointed to find that TBE for SeaMonkey was disabled on this latest
version. Plus, the second most important extension, IMO, for both Fx and
SeaMonkey was also disabled on this latest SeaMonkey version. I was able to
get Mel's MR Tech to work good enough on Fx4 but it appears on SeaMonkey the
only way to get a disabled extension to work is to manually bump the maximum
version number which I have not done yet. Without MR Tech, I can't easily
force Tree Style Tabs to work on the latest SeaMonkey.

Remember I got Mozilla browser originally many years ago and made it default
purely because I fell in love with TBE. To me, it's a crime to have
SeaMonkey not work now with the greatest extension ever written and that was
originally written for Mozilla browser. I don't care about security issues,
or new stuff in a browser, unless I decide I need that new stuff and much of
it is of little interest to me. I have never had a virus in all these years.
I have excellent security programs. I run XP Pro SP2 by choice and even with
no Microsoft security patches in over a year, I don't worry. I use a local
proxy called the Proxomitron, a classic HIPS, and I run as Admin but I
follow strict rules for security and never violate them. So, upgrading for
security reasons is not a huge issue for me. Other issues have priority.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Jeremy Bicha

unread,
Aug 28, 2011, 1:39:31 AM8/28/11
to
On Saturday, August 27, 2011 6:38:36 AM UTC-4, Desiree wrote:
> version. Plus, the second most important extension, IMO, for both Fx and
> SeaMonkey was also disabled on this latest SeaMonkey version. I was able to
> get Mel's MR Tech to work good enough on Fx4 but it appears on SeaMonkey the
> only way to get a disabled extension to work is to manually bump the maximum
> version number which I have not done yet. Without MR Tech, I can't easily
> force Tree Style Tabs to work on the latest SeaMonkey.

I recommend you instead try the officially supported https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/

Lozzy

unread,
Aug 28, 2011, 5:43:57 AM8/28/11
to Adam Kowalczyk, dev-us...@lists.mozilla.org
On Tuesday, 23 August 2011 23:43:58 UTC+1, Alex Faaborg wrote:

> > The idea to incorporate year in the version number was an interesting
> > proposal
>
>
> Yeah, I really like a time based version number as well (since it contains
> meaning) and I think we should eventually switch over to using one.

I wonder whether it might be prudent to ask the Ubuntu team how they have fared with time based version numbers and whether there are any glaring positives or negatives arising from it. Even if the change isn't in contention yet, it might be sensible to seek the information now so that it has time to soak and you're informed when people ask questions in relation to time based versions.

Personally, I think Ubuntu's version numbers make a lot of sense and are straightforward; their current is 11.04, where 11 indicates 2011 and 04 indicates April. Simple and effective if you ask me.

Desiree

unread,
Aug 28, 2011, 8:22:13 AM8/28/11
to

"Jeremy Bicha" <jer...@bicha.net> wrote in message
news:0ec59202-87f7-4c50...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...

I thought that only worked on Fx. I don't think much of it. Mel's extension
is FAR SUPERIOR.

What I need is not to try and use the version of TBE that was disabled. It
is very old and I can't imagine that it would work. It is now called Tree
Style Tabs and Multiple Tab Handler. I need to be able to install Tree Style
Tabs and see if it will work. I need to be able to disable SeaMonkey's
blocking of installation of extensions that supposedly won't work on
SeaMonkey. I need MR Tech for this as it would disable blocking and would
handle the installation and then I could see if it works at all, partially,
or should work fully.

The addons (bad word ...it is an extension ...not an addon... Mozilla thinks
its users are so illiterate that they don't know the word extension)
reporter will not make it so I can download and install Tree Style Tabs. It
just enables extensions you ALREADY HAVE that have been disabled. It is
nothing compared to MR Tech and it is a grave loss to no longer have MR Tech
except sort of working on Fx4. Another reason I will not upgrade Fx 4 as
then MR Tech might not work at all.

I'm going to uninstall SeaMonkey. I can't stand it not having Tree Style
Tabs and Multiple Tab Handler. Otherwise, I like SeaMonkey but it was a
better browser before it decided to imitate Fx and even identify as Fx which
is really sick. SeaMonkey should have remained SeaMonkey and remained true
to itself. I wish I had not installed it on top of itself so I could go
back to the version from 2009 where TBE still worked.

Desiree

unread,
Aug 28, 2011, 8:30:06 AM8/28/11
to

"David Tenser" <djst.m...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4E579BEB...@gmail.com...

Well, I use the browser and browser version that works with my beloved
extensions. I could care less about anything else about said browser unless
it did something truly outrageous like forcing updating or forcing
acceptance of third party cookies, etc. Otherwise, I don't care about having
the "latest" version. I want the version that works with my extensions. Fx
is its extensions. That is the only reason it exists and is as successful as
it is today. It is nothing as a browser without all the extensions. It's
Chrome which is the most horrible browser out there except for Safari.
Stripped and watered down browsers are for computer ignorant users. Fx was
to be first for power users but it has gotten badly off track since many of
us started out with it way, way back.


Ron Hunter

unread,
Aug 28, 2011, 8:46:05 AM8/28/11
to
The vast majority of browser users don't even know what an extension is,
or what they are for. Those of us who do know that they are for enjoy
them, and like to be able to use them. I have moved from FF4 to FF7,
and have yet to lose an extension. Same for going from TB3 to TB7 beta,
and no extensions lost. Usually, there are several choices for
extensions that to pretty much the same things, so if you find support
for one has disappeared, another can often be found to do the job,
sometimes much better. Unfortunately, many users aren't willing to try
to find another extension to serve their needs, preferring to just not
update.

Desiree

unread,
Aug 29, 2011, 8:32:34 AM8/29/11
to

"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:PIGdnVbsx9UbpcfT...@mozilla.org...
Well, there is NOT another MR Tech. There is not another Tree Style tabs
which I can't install in SeaMonkey. There is only ONE extension for Fx that
makes columns of bookmarks and that is an essential extension to have as Fx
bookmarks are lacking. Opera's are great though as columns are built into
the browser (but other things about Opera are not good). Tab Multiple
Hander for SeaMonkey is by another author and doesn't work right and is NOT
a substitute for the real thing Multiple Tab Handler for Fx which has no
other extension like it and which will not install on SeaMonkey Ghostery is
unique and a must on any browser and luckily it installs on SeaMonkey and on
Opera now also as many of us campaigned hard to get it for Opera. With
SeaMonkey the problem generally is not that support has disappeared for an
extension but that it has not been ported to SeaMonkey. That is where MR
Tech, if I could install it on SeaMonkey, would come into play as many of
the extensions not ported yet to SeaMonkey would work if you could just get
them installed.

Yes, I know most computer users have no idea what an extension is. I have
always felt that a Fx for Dummies should exist and users who know nothing
about computers and don't want to learn anything could use it. Those of us
who have taken the time and effort to educate ourselves about computers and
software (I am old enough to have not grown up with computers and knew
nothing when I got my first one) could use the full Fx.


brian

unread,
Aug 29, 2011, 9:53:36 AM8/29/11
to

Put simply, this change to the version number and where it is located
seems to me to be more for the benefit of the developers rather than the
average or slightly above average end user. I can understand what the
developers are doing, I just don't agree with their rationale for doing
it. As a former marketing man (retired) I can recall the simple mantra
the vendor/product manager who thought they knew their customers better
than the customer themselves invariably suffered the consequences!

Furthermore, retaining the hitherto information in the 'about firefox'
location should not prevent the developers from providing more
information in the new location Help>Troubleshooting Information.

Please note, I'm still a big Firefox fan!

Brian

Robert Kaiser

unread,
Aug 29, 2011, 10:21:23 AM8/29/11
to
Desiree schrieb:

> To me, it's a crime to have
> SeaMonkey not work now with the greatest extension ever written and that was
> originally written for Mozilla browser.

That's only the fault of the extension developer.

Robert Kaiser


--
Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never
meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible
arguments that we as a community should think about. And most of the
time, I even appreciate irony and fun! :)

Ron Hunter

unread,
Aug 29, 2011, 10:52:34 AM8/29/11
to
Yes, perhaps a 'Firefox lite' should be considered. They could supply
it to corporations who want to control the updating, and send an update
once a year, since most such companies have internal security already in
place. Use of extensions varies from those with none, to those with
hundreds. Most probably use less than 10. I, periodically, load a few
interesting ones, then trim those I am not using after a while. Among
your 'essential' ones, the only one I have ever used was MR Toolkit,
which has been pretty much replaced by building most of its features
into Firefox. I really don't miss it at all.
Extensions are a 'double-edged sword', in that they are great, but
sometimes cause a bit of pain.

Desiree

unread,
Aug 30, 2011, 1:49:59 AM8/30/11
to

"Robert Kaiser" <ka...@kairo.at> wrote in message
news:Y8ydnSG1Ief-PcbT...@mozilla.org...

> Desiree schrieb:
>> To me, it's a crime to have
>> SeaMonkey not work now with the greatest extension ever written and that
>> was
>> originally written for Mozilla browser.
>
> That's only the fault of the extension developer.
>
> Robert Kaiser

Possibly. But I doubt it. Mozilla forced the extension to "Experimental" for
Fx if you get it at the official Addons site. It is all political...long,
stormy history here.

Neil

unread,
Sep 14, 2011, 12:46:03 PM9/14/11
to
Desiree wrote:

>I like SeaMonkey but it was a better browser before it decided to imitate Fx and even identify as Fx which is really sick.
>
We used to get lots of complaints about sites not working with SeaMonkey
2.0, despite it being almost exactly equivalent to Firefox 3.5 from a
website point of view.

--
Warning: May contain traces of nuts.

Peter Sinnott

unread,
Sep 27, 2011, 5:45:19 PM9/27/11
to
On Aug 23, 10:08 pm, Ron Hunter <rphun...@charter.net> wrote :
> The trouble with open development is that something proposed, as an
> issue for discussion, can be seized upon and blown way out of
> proportion. I am somewhat surprised that some of the comments made a
> while back about 'forced updates' weren't jumped on. Or maybe they
> were, and the people who saw them just fled like scared jackrabbits. We
> can't know. Probably, in view of recent press, developers should
> consider how users, who lurk around here, might react to a proposal, and
> make sure everyone understands it is a proposal, not an established
> fact, or 'direction'.


So you are saying people who thought "It is part of the phasing out of
version numbers in Firefox that's already well under way" was
evidence of a completed decision and not a proposal are mistaken?

Johnathan Nightingale

unread,
Sep 27, 2011, 5:53:07 PM9/27/11
to Peter Sinnott, dev-us...@lists.mozilla.org
Yes. They are mistaken. Albeit understandably so.

J

---
Johnathan Nightingale
Director of Firefox Engineering
joh...@mozilla.com



Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages