mozilla 1.0.1 update...
Judson Valeski
down approvals by minusing requests that don't meet the further
restricted criteria. A few weeks ago the following criteria was posted
for 1.0.1 checkins.
"To provide more clarification regarding what we're targeting 1.0.1
for... we are generally looking for fixes to _high_ visibility problems,
stability improvements (topcrash bugs), & near zero risk polish issues.
The scope of 1.0.1 is more narrow than 1.0. Not everything that was
declined for 1.0 should be requesting 1.0.1 checkins. Yes, the 1.0
branch is going to be alive for awhile, but, architecture work, feature
work, risky changes, edge case work, and the like should be happening in
our life blood, the trunk; not the 1.0.1 branch."
Now we're looking for even _higher_ visibility problems. topcrash is
topcrash is topcrash. Low risk fixes to topcrash bugs are always strong
candidates. We're shooting for nearly full lock down by Monday (the 24th
of June), so, if you have bugs you want to include in 1.0.1 (that meet
the above, further, narrowed criteria), send them to
dri...@mozilla.org. We are only fielding bugs that have landed on the
trunk and have baked there for at least two days, and that have been
verified as resolved on the trunk.
Will there be a 1.0.2? If there's a need, there will be a 1.0.2.
Jud
Hasbullah Bin Pit (sebol)
will can 1.0.1 use 1.0.0 langpack?
is that any backward compatibility for 1.0.0's langpack ?
Judson Valeski menulis:
--
Hasbullah Bin Pit (sebol)
Fail signature.txt ini mengandungi enam belas aksara 'a'
dan lapan aksara 'i'
Jonas Jørgensen
> mozilla1.0.1 is winding down. starting yesterday we started tapering
> down approvals by minusing requests that don't meet the further
> restricted criteria. A few weeks ago the following criteria was posted
> for 1.0.1 checkins.
>
> "To provide more clarification regarding what we're targeting 1.0.1
> for... we are generally looking for fixes to _high_ visibility problems,
> stability improvements (topcrash bugs), & near zero risk polish issues.
> The scope of 1.0.1 is more narrow than 1.0.
If the scope of 1.0.1 is even narrower than 1.0, how come you approved
the New Tab button (new feature) for 1.0.1, but did not approve the
patch to remove the buggy "Open a link in a new window" checkbox from
Scripts & Windows (zero risk polish) for 1.0?
It couldn't possibly be because *Netscape* pushed for approval for the
New Tab button, could it?
I'm beginning to sound like JTK :-/
--
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby
can't chew it.
- Mark Twain
Soeren Nils Kuklau
the following:
> question:
> will can 1.0.1 use 1.0.0 langpack?
> is that any backward compatibility for 1.0.0's langpack ?
There's the new "New Tab" button on the tab bar, for example, so I
suppose a new langpack will be needed.
--
Sören Nils Kuklau ('Chucker')
mailto:chu...@web.de
Daniel Veditz
> If the scope of 1.0.1 is even narrower than 1.0, how come you approved
> the New Tab button (new feature) for 1.0.1, but did not approve the
> patch to remove the buggy "Open a link in a new window" checkbox from
> Scripts & Windows (zero risk polish) for 1.0?
What were the relative times of the two patches? The 1.0.1 localization
freeze was early June and I remember the Netscape browser folks scrambling
over a very long weekend after their small usability study of 7.0pr1 to get
a few tweaks in on time.
> It couldn't possibly be because *Netscape* pushed for approval for the
> New Tab button, could it?
Absolutely no one is happy with drivers -- I'd hate to have that job. Inside
Netscape a UI fork is being planned because of this kind of suspicion and
accusation, and some mozilla.org folks apparently feel the need to be extra
obstructionist so as not to give any appearance of kowtowing to Netscape.
It's just no fun dealing with and a fair number of Netscape managers are
about ready to drag us back inside.
Be careful what you wish for.
-Dan Veditz
John Dobbins
> Judson Valeski wrote:
>
>> mozilla1.0.1 is winding down. starting yesterday we started tapering
>> down approvals by minusing requests that don't meet the further
>> restricted criteria. A few weeks ago the following criteria was posted
>> for 1.0.1 checkins.
>>
>> "To provide more clarification regarding what we're targeting 1.0.1
>> for... we are generally looking for fixes to _high_ visibility
>> problems, stability improvements (topcrash bugs), & near zero risk
>> polish issues. The scope of 1.0.1 is more narrow than 1.0.
>
>
> If the scope of 1.0.1 is even narrower than 1.0, how come you approved
> the New Tab button (new feature) for 1.0.1, but did not approve the
> patch to remove the buggy "Open a link in a new window" checkbox from
> Scripts & Windows (zero risk polish) for 1.0?
It would be nice if you added a link to the bug in Bugzilla so we could
see this "zero risk" patch and any comments in the bug report.
Adding a button that makes it easier to access existing code is hardly
adding a new "feature", rather I'd call it adding a new UI element.
>
> It couldn't possibly be because *Netscape* pushed for approval for the
> New Tab button, could it?
Why should Netscape be treated more harshly than other developers? If
Red Hat or an independant developer submitted a patch that was accepted
would you be complaining about Red Hat or Joe Blow getting special favors?
Often "pushing" for approval is the only way to get all the permissions
needed to check a bug in.
John Dobbins
Jonas Jørgensen
>> If the scope of 1.0.1 is even narrower than 1.0, how come you approved
>> the New Tab button (new feature) for 1.0.1, but did not approve the
>> patch to remove the buggy "Open a link in a new window" checkbox from
>> Scripts & Windows (zero risk polish) for 1.0?
>
> It would be nice if you added a link to the bug in Bugzilla so we could
> see this "zero risk" patch and any comments in the bug report.
The bug: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=78037
The patch: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=87349
> Adding a button that makes it easier to access existing code is hardly
> adding a new "feature", rather I'd call it adding a new UI element.
Still more risky than *removing* a UI element.
>> It couldn't possibly be because *Netscape* pushed for approval for the
>> New Tab button, could it?
>
> Why should Netscape be treated more harshly than other developers?
They shouldn't.
> If Red Hat or an independant developer submitted a patch that was accepted
> would you be complaining about Red Hat or Joe Blow getting special favors?
No. But when an independent developer submits a patch which is not
approved for 1.0, and Netscape submits a patch with a higher (though
still low) risk, which is approved for 1.0.1 though 1.0.1 is supposed to
be stricter than 1.0, I might start to think that Netscape is getting
special favors.
> Often "pushing" for approval is the only way to get all the permissions
> needed to check a bug in.
I pushed. I didn't get approval.
Look, this is not a big deal or anything; it just makes me kinda sad
that mozilla.org is not as independent from Netscape as it might seem,
that's all. But it doesn't matter much, I guess.
/Jonas
David Tenser
> John Dobbins wrote:
>
>> Adding a button that makes it easier to access existing code is hardly
>> adding a new "feature", rather I'd call it adding a new UI element.
>
>
> Still more risky than *removing* a UI element.
>
I wouldn't agree. Removing a UI element can cause other controls that
depend on that element to break. Adding a new UI element doesn't affect
the old ones. But this is off topic, I know...
>>> It couldn't possibly be because *Netscape* pushed for approval for
>>> the New Tab button, could it?
>>
>> Why should Netscape be treated more harshly than other developers?
>
> They shouldn't.
>
>> If Red Hat or an independant developer submitted a patch that was
>> accepted would you be complaining about Red Hat or Joe Blow getting
>> special favors?
>
> No. But when an independent developer submits a patch which is not
> approved for 1.0, and Netscape submits a patch with a higher (though
> still low) risk, which is approved for 1.0.1 though 1.0.1 is supposed to
> be stricter than 1.0, I might start to think that Netscape is getting
> special favors.
>
>> Often "pushing" for approval is the only way to get all the
>> permissions needed to check a bug in.
>
> I pushed. I didn't get approval.
>
> Look, this is not a big deal or anything; it just makes me kinda sad
> that mozilla.org is not as independent from Netscape as it might seem,
> that's all. But it doesn't matter much, I guess.
You *do* start to sound like JTK! Don't scare me Jonas! You need that
vacation badly ;)
Jonas Jørgensen
> You *do* start to sound like JTK! Don't scare me Jonas! You need that
> vacation badly ;)
1) You're right, I do, 2) okay, I'll try not to, and 3) yes, I do :-)