"But this IS the common use case: We have a site of our own that we're debugging. We want Firebug up all the time for that site and never for others."
EXACTLY!!! I totally fail to understand how that behavior is a "bug" that needed to be fixed..... I thought after i made my last post: "screw it, i'll just 'turn on for all websites' and deal with it this way".... then 10 mins later as i checked my email i was rudely reminded just how much Gmail + Firebug = extreme failure "We have been working and previewing this design for many months" And i bet the # of people using this preview is just a drop in the bucket compared to the people using whatever version is at http://www.getfirebug.com (which as i type this, is 1.3.3).... I mean come on now, there's lots of topics in this mailing list of people who don't like this "bug fix", surely there's enough feedback to at least think about making the change... I saw someone post on another topic this page: http://www.softwareishard.com/blog/firebug/how-to-enable-and-disable-firebug-14/ There's two comments there, and they echo what we are all echoing here: 1.4's activation model is counter intuitive ** and not day to day developer friendly **... but if your focus has shifted from being the absolute must have JavaScript developer tool (believe me, it was, as it actually roped me into FireFox as my everyday browser) to a plugin my father could use (good god), then whatever, i guess it's "3) We can't satisfied everybody" On Jun 30, 7:29 pm, johnjbarton <[email protected]> wrote: > Well for a start you can go back in this newsgroup to when 1.3 was > introduced. For me, the comments on how bad 1.3 worked became the > incentive to try a different approach. > > We have been working and previewing this design for many months. The > first blog post about an implementation that you could try > was:http://blog.getfirebug.com/?p=124. > > We had numerous discussions on the design in the Firebug Working > Group. (http://groups.google.com/group/firebug-working-group) While > that is a private newsgroup for the developers, we always listen here > for issues and problems. > > In general we respond best to concrete use cases. We got a lot of > excellent feedback from folks on this newsgroup and it caused design > changes which we hope made 1.4 better. > > jjb > > On Jun 30, 2:47 pm, Luke Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Whose opinion? Broken how? > > > I have to say, I think there would be far less pushback if the > > rationale for the new interface, and for discarding the old one, were > > more clearly articulated. > > > On Jun 30, 11:58 am, johnjbarton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jun 30, 9:12 am, MorningZ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > this is a situation "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" > > > > In the opinion of others it was broken so it was fixed. > > > > In the process we did allow for extensions to add features like domain > > > filters. > > > > jjb --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Firebug" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
