Jeremy M. Dolan wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Daniel Veditz wrote: > >>That's what the spec says, but in fact Netscape 6.2 was built from the 0.9.4 >>branch started on Sept 4th., it didn't correspond to the Gecko of October 19 >>at all. It was whatever was on the 0.9.4 branch on 10/19. I've elsewhere > > Then Netscape broke the spec, and needs to stop doing so.
I think so too, but the solution is unclear >>proposed (bug 65764) that it'd be more accurate and in keeping with the spec >>to do something like "Gecko/20010904.45" (45 days into a branch started Sept >>4th). > > That would be no more accurate, and only further breaking the spec. > ".45" is quite meaningless. If Netscape is modifying Gecko that much > after branch, the Gecko/ token should be removed. Of course it's more accurate (in some ways), and the delimited portion can have any meaning we assign to it. And any delimiter--don't get hung up on the specific proposal. Long lived branches are a fact of life, mozilla.org itself expects the magic 1.0 branch to live as long as a year and a half with active derivatives. Those derivatives *will be* Gecko derivatives, removing the Gecko token would be even more wrong. It's not a matter of breaking the spec, the spec is silent about what to do with branches and needs to be extended. With 1.0 staring us in the face now would be a very good time to figure it out. >>Well, not "Seamonkey". That was Netscape's codename for 6.0 and has a bit of >>a bad taste around here (as does this newsgroup's name). > > What, then? Netscape used their code name for the token (Mozilla)... > only fitting Mozilla uses its code name (Seamonkey). Be my guest, I'm not one of the rabid Netscape-is-evil folks. I'd rather skip the flamewars it'll generate, though. -Dan Veditz
