Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Lee]

On 7/11/11, Chris Ilias  wrote:
> On 11-07-10 12:58 PM, Lee wrote:
>> On 7/10/11, Chris Ilias  wrote:
>>> On 11-07-09 2:11 PM, Lee wrote:
 But the downside is that Mozilla is forcing everyone still using their
 browser to be alpha/beta testers by not keeping a "stable" version of
 the software supported.
>>>
>>> SeaMonkey 2.2 and Firefox 5 are stable.
>>
>> The SeaMonkey dev team has done an excellent job of creating a quality
>> product.  So in that sense, yes, SM is "stable".  But what I meant by
>> "stable" in the context of "forcing everyone still using their browser
>> to be alpha/beta testers" is a release train with no new features -
>> just patches.
>
> And those new features have already gone through alpha/beta testing and
> have been deemed ready for end-users.
>
 Why in the world the Mozilla folk think going to a rapid release
 system is going to win back their lost "mindshare" (FF usage: down.
 chrome usage: up) is beyond me.
>>>
>>> It has nothing to do with whatever you call mindshare, and more to do
>>> with not letting unfinished features prevent other improvements (like
>>> CSS animations) from getting out to users when they are ready.
>>
>> I suspect there's  lot of SM users that would prefer to stay on the
>> same release train (eg. 2.2.x) and not upgrade to the next release
>> train until all of the addons they use have been updated to work work
>> with the new release train.  Even if it meant living without CSS
>> animations..
>
> So your issue about add-on compatibility, not forking old releases,
> correct? In other words, if all your add-ons were compatible with SM 2.2
> when 2.2 was released, you wouldn't mind the rapid release, correct?

Add-on compatibility is a subset of 'everything working properly after
an upgrade.'
If everything continues to work properly after an upgrade, no, I don't
mind the rapid release.

Work, I suspect, is going to mind rapid-release since they do test
before deploying.   One of the email staff at work told me that Lotus
iNotes works better with FF than IE.  So I gave FF a try & it wouldn't
work at all for me.  Turns out I'd upgraded, he hadn't & if I wanted
to be able to get to iNotes with FF I'd have to downgrade to 3.6 or
wait for some Notes patch..

Regards,
Lee
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Chris Ilias]

On 11-07-11 5:16 PM, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 11-07-10 8:52 PM, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 11-07-09 2:11 PM, Lee wrote:

...


SeaMonkey 2.2 and Firefox 5 are stable.


But the automatic update script isn't even out yet. So 2.2 hasn't had
a chance to spread yet.
Of course it may be declared stable by edict, with all fixes later,
in future versions, mixed in with new features.

According to Callek SM 2.3 is expected in about a month.

So where is there any evidence of stability?


When end-users go to the SeaMonkey website to download the latest stable
version, they are given SeaMonkey 2.2. That means alpha and beta testing
of 2.2 is done.

Nah...


Yeahuh. :)


When end-users go to the SeaMonkey site, that is no warantee
of the stability of what they get. It is the product version that has
been frozen for release at that moment in time.


The fact that is what end-users are told to download is the assurance 
you are looking for.


What you're referring to is not alpha and beta testing.

--
Chris Ilias 
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Rostyslaw Lewyckyj]

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 11-07-10 8:52 PM, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 11-07-09 2:11 PM, Lee wrote:

...


SeaMonkey 2.2 and Firefox 5 are stable.


But the automatic update script isn't even out yet. So 2.2 hasn't had
a chance to spread yet.
Of course it may be declared stable by edict, with all fixes later,
in future versions, mixed in with new features.

According to Callek SM 2.3 is expected in about a month.

So where is there any evidence of stability?


When end-users go to the SeaMonkey website to download the latest stable
version, they are given SeaMonkey 2.2. That means alpha and beta testing
of 2.2 is done.

  Nah... When end-users go to the SeaMonkey site, that is no warantee
of the stability of what they get. It is the product version that has
been frozen for release at that moment in time.


If the auto-update to 2.2 is not available yet, that
just means that the auto-update to 2.2 is not ready yet.


 Oh! How true! ... Gee  :)


It may need more testing; ...
.


 Of course the users can manually upgrade to the 2.2 release.
But any user who is set up for an automatic check for upgrades, or who 
presses Help| CHeck for updates will get the response that there are no

updates!  ergo my statement that "So 2.2 hasn't had a chance to
spread yet. " among the general user population which is not chasing
the latest. Which means that the Gamma testing phase has not even
begun
To most, stability means absence of commonly encountered bugs and
misfeatures in the current product. Not the freezing of a code package
for release.


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Chris Ilias]

On 11-07-11 3:48 PM, Ray_Net wrote:

Why did you speak about "stability" when we see a too rapid changing.


My original "SeaMonkey 2.2 and Firefox 5 are stable" statement was in 
response to Lee's statement that "Mozilla is forcing everyone still 
using their browser to be alpha/beta testers by not keeping a "stable" 
version of the software supported."



I just intalled 2.1 because t was presented as the best, now 2.2 is the
best, 2.3 is not far from 2.2, etc  should we consider 2.x changes
as minor release so we can jump from 2.0 to 2.1, or 2.2 or 2.3 or 2.4 or
2.5 ?


More frequent release = less difference between releases.
But those differences are not restricted. Previously updates to 2.0.x 
would be restricted to security and stability fixes. API changes were 
not allowed until the next major release.



With a major release in 3.0 where perhaps we need to be in 2.5
when we decided to go to 3.0 ... without the possibility to go from 2.0
to 2.0 ?


I have no idea if there is a plan for SeaMonkey 3.0. One element of the 
rapid release cycle for Firefox is that version numbers are not marketed 
at all.


--
Chris Ilias 
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Ray_Net]

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 11-07-10 8:52 PM, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 11-07-09 2:11 PM, Lee wrote:

...


SeaMonkey 2.2 and Firefox 5 are stable.


But the automatic update script isn't even out yet. So 2.2 hasn't had
a chance to spread yet.
Of course it may be declared stable by edict, with all fixes later,
in future versions, mixed in with new features.

According to Callek SM 2.3 is expected in about a month.

So where is there any evidence of stability?


When end-users go to the SeaMonkey website to download the latest stable
version, they are given SeaMonkey 2.2. That means alpha and beta testing
of 2.2 is done. If the auto-update to 2.2 is not available yet, that
just means that the auto-update to 2.2 is not ready yet. It may need
more testing; maybe it just needs to be localized. But just because the
auto-update from previous versions to 2.2 is not available yet does not
mean that 2.2 itself is not stable. If end-users want to update without
using the auto-update they can go to 
right now.


Why did you speak about "stability" when we see a too rapid changing.
I just intalled 2.1 because t was presented as the best, now 2.2 is the 
best, 2.3 is not far from 2.2, etc  should we consider 2.x changes
as minor release so we can jump from 2.0 to 2.1, or 2.2 or 2.3 or 2.4 or 
2.5 ? With a major release in 3.0 where perhaps we need to be in 2.5 
when we decided to go to 3.0 ... without the possibility to go from 2.0 
to 2.0 ?

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Chris Ilias]

On 11-07-10 8:52 PM, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 11-07-09 2:11 PM, Lee wrote:

...


SeaMonkey 2.2 and Firefox 5 are stable.


But the automatic update script isn't even out yet. So 2.2 hasn't had
a chance to spread yet.
Of course it may be declared stable by edict, with all fixes later,
in future versions, mixed in with new features.

According to Callek SM 2.3 is expected in about a month.

So where is there any evidence of stability?


When end-users go to the SeaMonkey website to download the latest stable 
version, they are given SeaMonkey 2.2. That means alpha and beta testing 
of 2.2 is done. If the auto-update to 2.2 is not available yet, that 
just means that the auto-update to 2.2 is not ready yet. It may need 
more testing; maybe it just needs to be localized. But just because the 
auto-update from previous versions to 2.2 is not available yet does not 
mean that 2.2 itself is not stable. If end-users want to update without 
using the auto-update they can go to  
right now.


--
Chris Ilias 
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Chris Ilias]

On 11-07-10 12:58 PM, Lee wrote:

On 7/10/11, Chris Ilias  wrote:

On 11-07-09 2:11 PM, Lee wrote:

But the downside is that Mozilla is forcing everyone still using their
browser to be alpha/beta testers by not keeping a "stable" version of
the software supported.


SeaMonkey 2.2 and Firefox 5 are stable.


The SeaMonkey dev team has done an excellent job of creating a quality
product.  So in that sense, yes, SM is "stable".  But what I meant by
"stable" in the context of "forcing everyone still using their browser
to be alpha/beta testers" is a release train with no new features -
just patches.


And those new features have already gone through alpha/beta testing and 
have been deemed ready for end-users.



Why in the world the Mozilla folk think going to a rapid release
system is going to win back their lost "mindshare" (FF usage: down.
chrome usage: up) is beyond me.


It has nothing to do with whatever you call mindshare, and more to do
with not letting unfinished features prevent other improvements (like
CSS animations) from getting out to users when they are ready.


I suspect there's  lot of SM users that would prefer to stay on the
same release train (eg. 2.2.x) and not upgrade to the next release
train until all of the addons they use have been updated to work work
with the new release train.  Even if it meant living without CSS
animations..


So your issue about add-on compatibility, not forking old releases, 
correct? In other words, if all your add-ons were compatible with SM 2.2 
when 2.2 was released, you wouldn't mind the rapid release, correct?


--
Chris Ilias 
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Daniel]

Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 11-07-09 2:11 PM, Lee wrote:

...


SeaMonkey 2.2 and Firefox 5 are stable.


But the automatic update script isn't even out yet. So 2.2 hasn't had
a chance to spread yet.
Of course it may be declared stable by edict, with all fixes later,
in future versions, mixed in with new features.

According to Callek SM 2.3 is expected in about a month.

So where is there any evidence of stability?


Back in the SM 1.x.x days, SM 1.0.1 would have been thought "Stable" at 
some time and at that same time, dev work would have been occurring for 
SM 1.0.2, and SM 1.0.3 might have been the bleeding edge version.


Back in the SM 2.0.x days, SM 2.0.1 would have been thought "Stable" at 
some time and at that same time, dev work would have been occurring for 
SM 2.0.2, and SM 2.0.3 might have been the bleeding edge version.


 Now, the SM development team are saying that SM 2.2 is the best 
they've got, but they are working on SM 2.3 and also 2.4 and 2.5 
(bleeding edge)


So, about all that's happened is that they have done away with the "0", 
the SM 2 base will probably last as long as the SM 1 base lasted.


IMHO, anyway!
--
Daniel
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Rostyslaw Lewyckyj]

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 11-07-09 2:11 PM, Lee wrote:

...


SeaMonkey 2.2 and Firefox 5 are stable.


But the automatic update script isn't even out yet. So 2.2 hasn't had
a chance to spread yet.
Of course it may be declared stable by edict, with all fixes later,
in future versions, mixed in with new features.

According to Callek SM 2.3 is expected in about a month.

So where is there any evidence of stability?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Lee]

On 7/10/11, Chris Ilias  wrote:
> On 11-07-09 2:11 PM, Lee wrote:
>> But the downside is that Mozilla is forcing everyone still using their
>> browser to be alpha/beta testers by not keeping a "stable" version of
>> the software supported.
>
> SeaMonkey 2.2 and Firefox 5 are stable.

The SeaMonkey dev team has done an excellent job of creating a quality
product.  So in that sense, yes, SM is "stable".  But what I meant by
"stable" in the context of "forcing everyone still using their browser
to be alpha/beta testers" is a release train with no new features -
just patches.

My understanding is that FF security patches will be applied =only= to
the next release.  No more releasing a 4.0 version and still providing
security fixes for the 3.6 release train.  When 5.0 is released users
either upgrade to 5.0 or run software with known vulns.


>> Why in the world the Mozilla folk think going to a rapid release
>> system is going to win back their lost "mindshare" (FF usage: down.
>> chrome usage: up) is beyond me.
>
> It has nothing to do with whatever you call mindshare, and more to do
> with not letting unfinished features prevent other improvements (like
> CSS animations) from getting out to users when they are ready.

I suspect there's  lot of SM users that would prefer to stay on the
same release train (eg. 2.2.x) and not upgrade to the next release
train until all of the addons they use have been updated to work work
with the new release train.  Even if it meant living without CSS
animations..

Regards,
Lee
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Chris Ilias]

On 11-07-09 6:00 PM, Ray_Net wrote:

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 11-07-09 11:41 AM, Ray_Net wrote:

This is exactly my opinion ... developpers are only interested to
implement new gadgets instead of fixing bugs. SM is full of bugs that
would never been corrected ... because those bug did not stop SM
working. But those bugs is a real annoyance.


Please look at the changelog between each release before you form such
an opinion, thanks.

Why to look at changelog when some bugs are initiated 7 years ago ...


Because a changelog will list many bugs that are not "implementing new 
gadgets". If you disagree with which bugs get fixed first, that doesn't 
mean they are only interested in implementing new gadgets. It just means 
that many bugs reported less than 7 years ago were considered more 
important or easier to fix.


--
Chris Ilias 
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Chris Ilias]

On 11-07-09 2:11 PM, Lee wrote:

But the downside is that Mozilla is forcing everyone still using their
browser to be alpha/beta testers by not keeping a "stable" version of
the software supported.


SeaMonkey 2.2 and Firefox 5 are stable.


Why in the world the Mozilla folk think going to a rapid release
system is going to win back their lost "mindshare" (FF usage: down.
chrome usage: up) is beyond me.


It has nothing to do with whatever you call mindshare, and more to do 
with not letting unfinished features prevent other improvements (like 
CSS animations) from getting out to users when they are ready.


--
Chris Ilias 
Newsgroup moderator
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[MCBastos]

Interviewed by CNN on 09/07/2011 19:59, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj told the world:

> Let's call a spade a spade!
> 
> The most appropriate label for the "rapid-release train versioning 
> system"  is
>"The CONSTANT BETA system".
> Especially with your suggestion of never fixing bugs on an existing
> version, "It'll (maybe) be fixed in the next (or some future) release"
> there is no hope of ever achieving any bugwise stable  plateaus.

"Beta" is just a label. It means different things in different contexts.
For a Google website, for instance, it can mean "opened for business
years ago and is used by millions of people worldwide."

The rapid-release model does have a beta stage, but you are artificially
applying the definitions of a different development model to it.

And it does bother to fix bugs. The main difference is that in the
rapid-release train, you don't hold any new features which are ready for
users for some future "feature" release -- you include them in the first
release out the door. So it's not so much "don't do bugfix releases,"
it's "include the new features in the bugfix release."

> Of course SM is constrained in this, by it's need to follow along
> the lead of FF and TB in its internal structure, and thus most
> external features and development path and type of label progression.
> (i.e. if FF/TB introduces a new feature or reorganizes the code base
> and ups its version number, then SM dare not keep its current version
> number and only change the modification level number)
> 

Actually, the SM Council has the freedom of using any numbering scheme
they want for their product -- Gecko numbering is out of their hands,
however. For the moment, they chose incrementing the minor version
number as the most appropriate (differently from Firefox, I might add).
They *could* in theory have released 2.2 as "2.1.1", but that wouldn't
reflect the fact that there were changes to the Gecko engine adding
features. 2.2 is more than a bugfix release, despite the fact that the
parts the Seamonkey Dev group was directly involved with were mostly
bugfixes.

However, I don't think minor-version increments is the best long-term
numbering strategy any more than Chrome or Firefox's serial
major-version increment is: at some point, the "minor" version number
will become ridiculously high, and the program will have evolved so much
that you could no longer argue that it's "essentially the same as 2.0,
with some improvements". So it will be time to go from, say, 2.17 to
3.0. Only the change will seem very arbitrary, because 2.17 will be far
more similar to 3.0 than to 2.0.

In the rapid-release system, version numbers don't tell us anything
useful beyond which release is newer. Since the changes are spread out
over a number of releases instead of collected and launched all at once,
you cannot guess offhand how different are two consecutive releases from
the numbers alone. Moving to a date-based numbering would at least tell
us how old is a given release.

-- 
MCBastos

This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized
use will be prosecuted under the DMCA.

-=-=-
... Sent from my owl mail.
*Added by TagZilla 0.066.2 running on Seamonkey 2.1 *
Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Rostyslaw Lewyckyj]

MCBastos wrote:

Interviewed by CNN on 09/07/2011 12:41, Ray_Net told the world:


This is exactly my opinion ... developpers are only interested to
implement new gadgets instead of fixing bugs. SM is full of bugs that
would never been corrected ... because those bug did not stop SM
working. But those bugs is a real annoyance.


That was not my point at all. What I meant was that, in the
rapid-release train system, you don't go back to older versions to fix
bugs -- you fix them only on new releases. That avoids duplication of work.

And about versioning schemes: I think a data-based version number system
would be better in the long run. Right now, anybody can remember that
the latest Firefox release is 5. But as the numbers rise, it gets harder
to tell them apart. Is the latest Chrome 13 or 14? How outdated is
Chrome 10? I'm not sure. But I sure know that Ubuntu 9.04 is more than
two years old.



Let's call a spade a spade!

The most appropriate label for the "rapid-release train versioning 
system"  is

  "The CONSTANT BETA system".
Especially with your suggestion of never fixing bugs on an existing
version, "It'll (maybe) be fixed in the next (or some future) release"
there is no hope of ever achieving any bugwise stable  plateaus.

Of course SM is constrained in this, by it's need to follow along
the lead of FF and TB in its internal structure, and thus most
external features and development path and type of label progression.
(i.e. if FF/TB introduces a new feature or reorganizes the code base
and ups its version number, then SM dare not keep its current version
number and only change the modification level number)

--
Rostyk
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Ray_Net]

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Ray_Net schrieb:

SM is full of bugs that
would never been corrected ... because those bug did not stop SM
working. But those bugs is a real annoyance.


Feel free to work on fixing them. This is an open source, all-volunteer
project.



If i had all the software needed to work on SM sources, and if i had all 
the differents programmatic languages knowledge, i will be happy to help SM.
But this is not the case. I have softwares and knowledges, but those are 
different that the needed one.
What i was trying to say, is that it would be nice if the work effort is 
more focused on solving bug than implement some new stuff.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Ray_Net]

Chris Ilias wrote:

On 11-07-09 11:41 AM, Ray_Net wrote:

This is exactly my opinion ... developpers are only interested to
implement new gadgets instead of fixing bugs. SM is full of bugs that
would never been corrected ... because those bug did not stop SM
working. But those bugs is a real annoyance.


Please look at the changelog between each release before you form such
an opinion, thanks.

Why to look at changelog when some bugs are initiated 7 years ago ... thanks
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Lee]

On 7/9/11, MCBastos  wrote:
> Interviewed by CNN on 09/07/2011 12:41, Ray_Net told the world:
>
>> This is exactly my opinion ... developpers are only interested to
>> implement new gadgets instead of fixing bugs. SM is full of bugs that
>> would never been corrected ... because those bug did not stop SM
>> working. But those bugs is a real annoyance.
>
> That was not my point at all. What I meant was that, in the
> rapid-release train system, you don't go back to older versions to fix
> bugs -- you fix them only on new releases. That avoids duplication of work.

But the downside is that Mozilla is forcing everyone still using their
browser to be alpha/beta testers by not keeping a "stable" version of
the software supported.

Why in the world the Mozilla folk think going to a rapid release
system is going to win back their lost "mindshare" (FF usage: down.
chrome usage: up) is beyond me.  They've dumbed down the UI to the
point where I had to regularly use about:config to set things & their
certificate handling is so horrible I've gone back to using IE at
work.

So ok, FF is free & it's my choice to use it or not.  I've already
chosen IE over FF, so no issue there.  But I still like SM & it
remains to be seen just how badly SM is going to get screwed over by
having to follow the FF rapid release model.

Lee
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Chris Ilias]

On 11-07-09 11:41 AM, Ray_Net wrote:

This is exactly my opinion ... developpers are only interested to
implement new gadgets instead of fixing bugs. SM is full of bugs that
would never been corrected ... because those bug did not stop SM
working. But those bugs is a real annoyance.


Please look at the changelog between each release before you form such 
an opinion, thanks.

--
Chris Ilias 
Newsgroup moderator
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Robert Kaiser]

Ray_Net schrieb:

SM is full of bugs that
would never been corrected ... because those bug did not stop SM
working. But those bugs is a real annoyance.


Feel free to work on fixing them. This is an open source, all-volunteer 
project.


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! :)

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[MCBastos]

Interviewed by CNN on 09/07/2011 14:01, MCBastos told the world:

> And about versioning schemes: I think a data-based version number system
> would be better in the long run. Right now, anybody can remember that
> the latest Firefox release is 5. But as the numbers rise, it gets harder
> to tell them apart. Is the latest Chrome 13 or 14? How outdated is
> Chrome 10? I'm not sure. But I sure know that Ubuntu 9.04 is more than
> two years old.

Sorry, I meant DATE-based version number system.

-- 
MCBastos

This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized
use will be prosecuted under the DMCA.

-=-=-
... Sent from my Filofax.
*Added by TagZilla 0.066.2 running on Seamonkey 2.1 *
Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[MCBastos]

Interviewed by CNN on 09/07/2011 12:41, Ray_Net told the world:

> This is exactly my opinion ... developpers are only interested to 
> implement new gadgets instead of fixing bugs. SM is full of bugs that 
> would never been corrected ... because those bug did not stop SM 
> working. But those bugs is a real annoyance.

That was not my point at all. What I meant was that, in the
rapid-release train system, you don't go back to older versions to fix
bugs -- you fix them only on new releases. That avoids duplication of work.

And about versioning schemes: I think a data-based version number system
would be better in the long run. Right now, anybody can remember that
the latest Firefox release is 5. But as the numbers rise, it gets harder
to tell them apart. Is the latest Chrome 13 or 14? How outdated is
Chrome 10? I'm not sure. But I sure know that Ubuntu 9.04 is more than
two years old.


-- 
MCBastos

This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized
use will be prosecuted under the DMCA.

-=-=-
... Sent from my UNCLE communicator pen.
*Added by TagZilla 0.066.2 running on Seamonkey 2.1 *
Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[WLS]

Ray_Net wrote:

MCBastos wrote:

Interviewed by CNN on 08/07/2011 12:49, Rex told the world:

Firefox went from version 4 to version 5 in less than 2 months - in
imitation of Google Chrome, who seem to be incrementing the version
every other week.
Please tell me Seamonkey isn't going to do the same thing so that by the
end of the year we're up to version 3.5 or 4, and 5 by next year.
Last week I updated to 2.1, and now barely a month later you're on 2.2,
and looks like 2.3 is a few weeks away..compared to when 2.0 debuted
last September and went on up to 2.0.14 for the minor fixes.

I can see 2.1 has major new features and changes relative to 2.0x, but
what about between 2.1 and 2.2? Shouldn't this be a minor update to 2.1?



I had similar thoughts about the new versioning scheme at first. The
thing seemed, at first glance, intended to make the marketing guys happy
by artificially inflating the version numbers. But then I realized that
the "rapid-release train" is an entirely different approach to the
release thing.

The traditional system is kinda like writing a textbook, or an
encyclopedia. You research, you write, you polish, you send it for
review, rinse and repeat, and it's done when it's done. Then you
distribute it for years essentially unchanged. Let's call it "Version
1.0."

Perhaps you add an appendix after a couple years (without considering it
a new edition), but you don't touch the main body -- that's kinda like
"version 1.1": you add a few things that are useful but don't alter the
main work.

And of course you fix typos on reprints -- but the bulk of the work is
static. That's kinda like "Release 1.1.1.": you add nothing new, just
fix bugs.

Then, after a long time, you do substantially revise your textbook and
release a new edition -- let's call it "Version 2.0." Then the cycle
starts again.

The rapid-release train, on the other hand, is more similar to a
periodical, like a catalog or those restaurant guides that come in the
newspapers. You have regular deadlines. Your section on Thai restaurants
may not be quite perfect, but the thing has to go to press, and it's
better than nothing, so you put it in anyway. Next week/month, you will
have an improved version. The thing is always evolving, but there are no
clear breakpoints. And you won't release a "corrected" guide between
editions.

Of course, Mozilla was kinda pushed into it by the way Chrome has been
doing the rapid-release thing. But it's not a bad idea in and of itself.

The traditional way of doing releases has its origins back when
distribution was slow, and getting a new version of the software was a
complicated process involving copying physical media. So you wanted to
make damn certain that whatever you released was not missing any
intended functionality, because the next major release was two or three
years away. In the meantime, you *might* release patches (which, being
smaller, were slightly easier to distribute) to fix problems.

Nowadays, with easy Internet distribution, keeping old branches active
is less useful. If you are going to release a patched version, you might
as well include the new stuff that is ready for public consumption.

With the new feature releases being spread out, and with the lack of
maintenance-only releases, there's no longer any practical difference
between a "major" and a "minor" release -- so you might as well adopt a
simpler numbering scheme. In fact, some projects done away with serial
version numbers entirely and went with release dates, like Ubuntu.

Perhaps they have the right idea -- perhaps the Mozilla community should
have jumped from "Firefox 3.6" to "Firefox 11.03" and then "11.06", and
Seamonkey should have jumped from "2.0" to "11.06." But such a large
jump would have flagged even more extensions as "incompatible." But it's
a thought for next year -- by then, Firefox and Gecko should be going
double digits.


This is exactly my opinion ... developpers are only interested to
implement new gadgets instead of fixing bugs. SM is full of bugs that
would never been corrected ... because those bug did not stop SM
working. But those bugs is a real annoyance.


What bugs should I be being annoyed by? I must be doing something wrong.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Ray_Net]

MCBastos wrote:

Interviewed by CNN on 08/07/2011 12:49, Rex told the world:

Firefox went from version 4 to version 5 in less than 2 months - in
imitation of Google Chrome, who seem to be incrementing the version
every other week.
Please tell me Seamonkey isn't going to do the same thing so that by the
end of the year we're up to version 3.5 or 4, and 5 by next year.
Last week I updated to 2.1, and now barely a month later you're on 2.2,
and looks like 2.3 is a few weeks away..compared to when 2.0 debuted
last September and went on up to 2.0.14 for the minor fixes.

I can see 2.1 has major new features and changes relative to 2.0x, but
what about between 2.1 and 2.2? Shouldn't this be a minor update to 2.1?



I had similar thoughts about the new versioning scheme at first. The
thing seemed, at first glance, intended to make the marketing guys happy
by artificially inflating the version numbers. But then I realized that
the "rapid-release train" is an entirely different approach to the
release thing.

The traditional system is kinda like writing a textbook, or an
encyclopedia. You research, you write, you polish, you send it for
review, rinse and repeat, and it's done when it's done. Then you
distribute it for years essentially unchanged. Let's call it "Version 1.0."

Perhaps you add an appendix after a couple years (without considering it
a new edition), but you don't touch the main body -- that's kinda like
"version 1.1": you add a few things that are useful but don't alter the
main work.

And of course you fix typos on reprints -- but the bulk of the work is
static. That's kinda like "Release 1.1.1.": you add nothing new, just
fix bugs.

Then, after a long time, you do substantially revise your textbook and
release a new edition -- let's call it "Version 2.0." Then the cycle
starts again.

The rapid-release train, on the other hand, is more similar to a
periodical, like a catalog or those restaurant guides that come in the
newspapers. You have regular deadlines. Your section on Thai restaurants
may not be quite perfect, but the thing has to go to press, and it's
better than nothing, so you put it in anyway. Next week/month, you will
have an improved version. The thing is always evolving, but there are no
clear breakpoints. And you won't release a "corrected" guide between
editions.

Of course, Mozilla was kinda pushed into it by the way Chrome has been
doing the rapid-release thing. But it's not a bad idea in and of itself.

The traditional way of doing releases has its origins back when
distribution was slow, and getting a new version of the software was a
complicated process involving copying physical media. So you wanted to
make damn certain that whatever you released was not missing any
intended functionality, because the next major release was two or three
years away. In the meantime, you *might* release patches (which, being
smaller, were slightly easier to distribute) to fix problems.

Nowadays, with easy Internet distribution, keeping old branches active
is less useful. If you are going to release a patched version, you might
as well include the new stuff that is ready for public consumption.

With the new feature releases being spread out, and with the lack of
maintenance-only releases, there's no longer any practical difference
between a "major" and a "minor" release -- so you might as well adopt a
simpler numbering scheme. In fact, some projects done away with serial
version numbers entirely and went with release dates, like Ubuntu.

Perhaps they have the right idea -- perhaps the Mozilla community should
have jumped from "Firefox 3.6" to "Firefox 11.03" and then "11.06", and
Seamonkey should have jumped from "2.0" to "11.06." But such a large
jump would have flagged even more extensions as "incompatible." But it's
a thought for next year -- by then, Firefox and Gecko should be going
double digits.

This is exactly my opinion ... developpers are only interested to 
implement new gadgets instead of fixing bugs. SM is full of bugs that 
would never been corrected ... because those bug did not stop SM 
working. But those bugs is a real annoyance.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[MCBastos]

Interviewed by CNN on 08/07/2011 12:49, Rex told the world:
> Firefox went from version 4 to version 5 in less than 2 months - in 
> imitation of Google Chrome, who seem to be incrementing the version 
> every other week.
> Please tell me Seamonkey isn't going to do the same thing so that by the 
> end of the year we're up to version 3.5 or 4, and 5 by next year.
> Last week I updated to 2.1, and now barely a month later you're on 2.2, 
> and looks like 2.3 is a few weeks away..compared to when 2.0 debuted 
> last September and went on up to 2.0.14 for the minor fixes.
> 
> I can see 2.1 has major new features and changes relative to 2.0x, but 
> what about between 2.1 and 2.2? Shouldn't this be a minor update to 2.1?


I had similar thoughts about the new versioning scheme at first. The
thing seemed, at first glance, intended to make the marketing guys happy
by artificially inflating the version numbers. But then I realized that
the "rapid-release train" is an entirely different approach to the
release thing.

The traditional system is kinda like writing a textbook, or an
encyclopedia. You research, you write, you polish, you send it for
review, rinse and repeat, and it's done when it's done. Then you
distribute it for years essentially unchanged. Let's call it "Version 1.0."

Perhaps you add an appendix after a couple years (without considering it
a new edition), but you don't touch the main body -- that's kinda like
"version 1.1": you add a few things that are useful but don't alter the
main work.

And of course you fix typos on reprints -- but the bulk of the work is
static. That's kinda like "Release 1.1.1.": you add nothing new, just
fix bugs.

Then, after a long time, you do substantially revise your textbook and
release a new edition -- let's call it "Version 2.0." Then the cycle
starts again.

The rapid-release train, on the other hand, is more similar to a
periodical, like a catalog or those restaurant guides that come in the
newspapers. You have regular deadlines. Your section on Thai restaurants
may not be quite perfect, but the thing has to go to press, and it's
better than nothing, so you put it in anyway. Next week/month, you will
have an improved version. The thing is always evolving, but there are no
clear breakpoints. And you won't release a "corrected" guide between
editions.

Of course, Mozilla was kinda pushed into it by the way Chrome has been
doing the rapid-release thing. But it's not a bad idea in and of itself.

The traditional way of doing releases has its origins back when
distribution was slow, and getting a new version of the software was a
complicated process involving copying physical media. So you wanted to
make damn certain that whatever you released was not missing any
intended functionality, because the next major release was two or three
years away. In the meantime, you *might* release patches (which, being
smaller, were slightly easier to distribute) to fix problems.

Nowadays, with easy Internet distribution, keeping old branches active
is less useful. If you are going to release a patched version, you might
as well include the new stuff that is ready for public consumption.

With the new feature releases being spread out, and with the lack of
maintenance-only releases, there's no longer any practical difference
between a "major" and a "minor" release -- so you might as well adopt a
simpler numbering scheme. In fact, some projects done away with serial
version numbers entirely and went with release dates, like Ubuntu.

Perhaps they have the right idea -- perhaps the Mozilla community should
have jumped from "Firefox 3.6" to "Firefox 11.03" and then "11.06", and
Seamonkey should have jumped from "2.0" to "11.06." But such a large
jump would have flagged even more extensions as "incompatible." But it's
a thought for next year -- by then, Firefox and Gecko should be going
double digits.

-- 
MCBastos

This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized
use will be prosecuted under the DMCA.

-=-=-
... Sent from my Burberry.
*Added by TagZilla 0.066.2 running on Seamonkey 2.1 *
Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Rostyslaw Lewyckyj]

Rex wrote:

Firefox went from version 4 to version 5 in less than 2 months - in
imitation of Google Chrome, who seem to be incrementing the version
every other week.
Please tell me Seamonkey isn't going to do the same thing so that by the
end of the year we're up to version 3.5 or 4, and 5 by next year.
Last week I updated to 2.1, and now barely a month later you're on 2.2,
and looks like 2.3 is a few weeks away..compared to when 2.0 debuted
last September and went on up to 2.0.14 for the minor fixes.


Have you ever seen gas(oline) price wars between competing pumping
stations in a neighbourhood? :)
Though in the case of SM they do have the justification of needing
to track FF and TB.



I can see 2.1 has major new features and changes relative to 2.0x, but
what about between 2.1 and 2.2? Shouldn't this be a minor update to 2.1?


Well really what does the label attached to the release matter?
What matters is the lack of stability and requirement for frequent
patch releases, whatever version label gets attached to them.


I have the same gripe as others here - broken extensions. All this while
I was happily using QuoteColors, Tagzilla, and several more, now they're
all broken.


Well now, and how are the equivalent extensions and plugins faring for
the new versions of FF and TB??? Have those Mozilla product development
teams managed to better persuade the extension writers to coordinate
with their new versions?
It is, after all, the extension writers/maintainers who have to make
the appropriate changes to their products.
Of course one can argue some about the details, of needed/gratuitous
changes to the interface requirements, ... , and coordination with
these developers.

There have been some postings here about how to make some of the
current version of plugins work with the new SM.

--
Rostyk
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Paul]

WLS wrote:

Paul wrote:

Rex wrote:

Firefox went from version 4 to version 5 in less than 2 months - in
imitation of Google Chrome, who seem to be incrementing the version
every other week.
Please tell me Seamonkey isn't going to do the same thing so that by
the end of the year we're up to version 3.5 or 4, and 5 by next year.
Last week I updated to 2.1, and now barely a month later you're on
2.2, and looks like 2.3 is a few weeks away..compared to when 2.0
debuted last September and went on up to 2.0.14 for the minor fixes.

I can see 2.1 has major new features and changes relative to 2.0x, but
what about between 2.1 and 2.2? Shouldn't this be a minor update to 2.1?

I have the same gripe as others here - broken extensions. All this
while I was happily using QuoteColors, Tagzilla, and several more, now
they're all broken.


Why upgrade? 1119 works quite well for me.


One word. Can you tell me what that word might be?


Paranoia?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[WLS]

Paul wrote:

Rex wrote:

Firefox went from version 4 to version 5 in less than 2 months - in
imitation of Google Chrome, who seem to be incrementing the version
every other week.
Please tell me Seamonkey isn't going to do the same thing so that by
the end of the year we're up to version 3.5 or 4, and 5 by next year.
Last week I updated to 2.1, and now barely a month later you're on
2.2, and looks like 2.3 is a few weeks away..compared to when 2.0
debuted last September and went on up to 2.0.14 for the minor fixes.

I can see 2.1 has major new features and changes relative to 2.0x, but
what about between 2.1 and 2.2? Shouldn't this be a minor update to 2.1?

I have the same gripe as others here - broken extensions. All this
while I was happily using QuoteColors, Tagzilla, and several more, now
they're all broken.


Why upgrade? 1119 works quite well for me.


One word. Can you tell me what that word might be?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Paul]

Rex wrote:
Firefox went from version 4 to version 5 in less than 2 months - in 
imitation of Google Chrome, who seem to be incrementing the version 
every other week.
Please tell me Seamonkey isn't going to do the same thing so that by the 
end of the year we're up to version 3.5 or 4, and 5 by next year.
Last week I updated to 2.1, and now barely a month later you're on 2.2, 
and looks like 2.3 is a few weeks away..compared to when 2.0 debuted 
last September and went on up to 2.0.14 for the minor fixes.


I can see 2.1 has major new features and changes relative to 2.0x, but 
what about between 2.1 and 2.2? Shouldn't this be a minor update to 2.1?


I have the same gripe as others here - broken extensions. All this while 
I was happily using QuoteColors, Tagzilla, and several more, now they're 
all broken.


Why upgrade?  1119 works quite well for me.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[WLS]

Rex wrote:

Firefox went from version 4 to version 5 in less than 2 months - in
imitation of Google Chrome, who seem to be incrementing the version
every other week.
Please tell me Seamonkey isn't going to do the same thing so that by the
end of the year we're up to version 3.5 or 4, and 5 by next year.
Last week I updated to 2.1, and now barely a month later you're on 2.2,
and looks like 2.3 is a few weeks away..compared to when 2.0 debuted
last September and went on up to 2.0.14 for the minor fixes.

I can see 2.1 has major new features and changes relative to 2.0x, but
what about between 2.1 and 2.2? Shouldn't this be a minor update to 2.1?

I have the same gripe as others here - broken extensions. All this while
I was happily using QuoteColors, Tagzilla, and several more, now they're
all broken.


So you haven't read the SeaMonkey 2.2 Release post in this newsgroup?

There are 2 major upgrades for SM 2.1, but is also the major upgrade for 
SM 2.0.14.


I'll repost the release notes for you.

http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/seamonkey2.2/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Rex]

Firefox went from version 4 to version 5 in less than 2 months - in 
imitation of Google Chrome, who seem to be incrementing the version 
every other week.
Please tell me Seamonkey isn't going to do the same thing so that by the 
end of the year we're up to version 3.5 or 4, and 5 by next year.
Last week I updated to 2.1, and now barely a month later you're on 2.2, 
and looks like 2.3 is a few weeks away..compared to when 2.0 debuted 
last September and went on up to 2.0.14 for the minor fixes.


I can see 2.1 has major new features and changes relative to 2.0x, but 
what about between 2.1 and 2.2? Shouldn't this be a minor update to 2.1?


I have the same gripe as others here - broken extensions. All this while 
I was happily using QuoteColors, Tagzilla, and several more, now they're 
all broken.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey