Re: are there still official seamonkey betas ?

bdelmee wrote on 2016-12-16 09:31: Edmund Wong wrote on 2016-12-16 04:40: Daniel wrote: On 15/12/2016 6:40 PM, bdelmee wrote: Richmond wrote on 2016-12-14 22:51: bdelmee writes: Hello, I keep seeing people mentioning unofficial dev builds and encouraging us to try

Re: are there still official seamonkey betas ?

On 16/12/2016 10:02, Piscium wrote: > Question: "about:buildconfig" tells me that gcc v. 4.8.5 was used to > build SM. gcc 4.8.5 is (arguably) old as gcc 4.8.0, the first version > in that series, was released in March 22, 2013, 3.5 years ago. > > Considering that FF is developed at breakneck

Re: are there still official seamonkey betas ?

bdelmee wrote: Edmund Wong wrote on 2016-12-15 08:36: bdelmee wrote: Hello, I keep seeing people mentioning unoffical dev builds and encouraging us to try those and report any issue before 2.46 comes out. I am still using 2.38 as 2.40 had an annoying regression for me, which i'd like to check

Re: are there still official seamonkey betas ?

bdelmee wrote: Hello, I keep seeing people mentioning unoffical dev builds and encouraging us to try those and report any issue before 2.46 comes out. I am still using 2.38 as 2.40 had an annoying regression for me, which i'd like to check on the next beta and report if still present. But -

Re: are there still official seamonkey betas ?

Yupidup, that worked. Thanks! Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote on 2016-12-16 11:26: Open Sidebar. Set search engine and do a search from there. Default will be set to this one then. Or do it from the search in the toolbar. The default engine always reflects the current engine now. FRG Daniel wrote:

Re: are there still official seamonkey betas ?

Open Sidebar. Set search engine and do a search from there. Default will be set to this one then. Or do it from the search in the toolbar. The default engine always reflects the current engine now. FRG Daniel wrote: On 16/12/2016 8:57 PM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote: een duck-ducked! Did I

Re: are there still official seamonkey betas ?

On 16/12/2016 8:57 PM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote: Setting the default search engine no longer works. Has been removed from Gecko/Firefox. Tracked in Bug 1265881: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1265881 Check it for a workaround. FRG bdelmee wrote: bdelmee wrote on 2016-12-16

Re: are there still official seamonkey betas ?

Setting the default search engine no longer works. Has been removed from Gecko/Firefox. Tracked in Bug 1265881: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1265881 Check it for a workaround. FRG bdelmee wrote: bdelmee wrote on 2016-12-16 09:31: B. odd - even though my profile has

Re: are there still official seamonkey betas ?

bdelmee wrote on 2016-12-16 09:31: Edmund Wong wrote on 2016-12-16 04:40: Daniel wrote: On 15/12/2016 6:40 PM, bdelmee wrote: Richmond wrote on 2016-12-14 22:51: bdelmee writes: Hello, I keep seeing people mentioning unofficial dev builds and encouraging us to try

Re: are there still official seamonkey betas ?

On 16 December 2016 at 03:40, Edmund Wong wrote: > It should be (officially just as a candidate, but unofficially as a > release) > https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/seamonkey/candidates/2.46-candidates/build9/unsigned/ > > basically.. candidate = unofficial >

Re: are there still official seamonkey betas ?

Edmund Wong wrote on 2016-12-16 04:40: Daniel wrote: On 15/12/2016 6:40 PM, bdelmee wrote: Richmond wrote on 2016-12-14 22:51: bdelmee writes: Hello, I keep seeing people mentioning unofficial dev builds and encouraging us to try those and report any issue before 2.46

Re: are there still official seamonkey betas ?

Edmund Wong wrote on 2016-12-15 08:36: bdelmee wrote: Hello, I keep seeing people mentioning unoffical dev builds and encouraging us to try those and report any issue before 2.46 comes out. I am still using 2.38 as 2.40 had an annoying regression for me, which i'd like to check on the next

Re: are there still official seamonkey betas ?

Daniel wrote: > On 15/12/2016 6:40 PM, bdelmee wrote: >> Richmond wrote on 2016-12-14 22:51: >>> bdelmee writes: >>> Hello, I keep seeing people mentioning unofficial dev builds and encouraging us to try those and report any issue before 2.46 comes out.

Re: are there still official seamonkey betas ?

On 15/12/2016 6:40 PM, bdelmee wrote: Richmond wrote on 2016-12-14 22:51: bdelmee writes: Hello, I keep seeing people mentioning unofficial dev builds and encouraging us to try those and report any issue before 2.46 comes out. I am still using 2.38 as 2.40 had an

Re: are there still official seamonkey betas ?

On 15/12/2016 6:40 PM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote: Ahh seems he is looking for an easy way out. Lets just punish him worse. He needs to do the next releases also! FRG Edmund Wong wrote: if it's the guy who did the release... he should be sacked! And he thinks he's going to get some

Re: are there still official seamonkey betas ?

l10n builds are still broken. Extensions needed to be removed in 2.46 for now. Now stalled with a mac OSX repack problem but this should hopefully be solved soon. FRG Felix Miata wrote: Edmund Wong composed on 2016-12-15 15:36 (UTC+0800): Fighting what? Since 18 Nov I've been using the Oct

Re: are there still official seamonkey betas ?

Edmund Wong composed on 2016-12-15 15:36 (UTC+0800): There will be betas.. just need the following to happen: 1) 2.46 is released 2) figure out if the next release is a beta (2.48) or release (2.47). 3) do a post-mortem discussion as to what the smeg went wrong with 2.46 and why hell

Re: are there still official seamonkey betas ?

Ahh seems he is looking for an easy way out. Lets just punish him worse. He needs to do the next releases also! FRG Edmund Wong wrote: if it's the guy who did the release... he should be sacked! ___ support-seamonkey mailing list

Re: are there still official seamonkey betas ?

thank you Richmond, but i only see alpha versions in that folder. my question remains: does seamonkey still follow a release cycle including public betas ? Richmond wrote on 2016-12-14 22:51: bdelmee writes: Hello, I keep seeing people mentioning unofficial dev builds

Re: are there still official seamonkey betas ?

bdelmee wrote: > Hello, I keep seeing people mentioning unoffical dev builds > and encouraging us to try those and report any issue before > 2.46 comes out. > > I am still using 2.38 as 2.40 had an annoying regression for me, > which i'd like to check on the next beta and report if still present.

Re: are there still official seamonkey betas ?

bdelmee writes: > Hello, I keep seeing people mentioning unoffical dev builds > and encouraging us to try those and report any issue before > 2.46 comes out. > > I am still using 2.38 as 2.40 had an annoying regression for me, > which i'd like to check on the next beta and