Oh, and did anyone mention that the workaround is to make your JS functions actually contain code? I think it's worth pointing out that this might not really be a serious problem, per se.
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:41, Randall Leeds <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:37, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 1.1.1 contains many important fixes, holding it up to get 1.8.5 >> support in seems odd to me. The breakage also seems dramatic for a bug >> fix release and there was wide agreement on that point. >> >> Putting all of that aside, what should we do? Make it configurable at >> build time? Introduce all this breakage in 1.1.1 and slap a big >> warning on it? >> > > It's already configurable at build time via --with-js-*.... > And again, I don't think there was a problem with any official release, > just some not official version some distros yanked out of a xulrunner > tarball. > If you must keep the support reverted, do so. I'll say I'm -0 on it. Just a > bit of a bummer. > > >> >> I'm still voting for the current state of 1.1.x, which doesn't include >> 1.8.5 support or the paren change. >> >> B. >> >> On 6 October 2011 19:34, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > On 6 Oct 2011, at 19:31, Paul Davis wrote: >> > >> >> That was awfully quick. :/ >> > >> > Agreed. >> > >> >> I would prefer to make this a social >> >> contract by doing something along the lines of requiring people to run >> >> ./configure --yes-really-give-me-1.8.5 >> > >> > -1 >> > >> > >> > >
