Daniel wrote on 31/10/2019 5:31 PM:
Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote on 31/10/2019 8:08 AM:
Onno Ekker wrote:
Op 30-10-2019 om 00:08 schreef Frank-Rainer Grahl:
Hawker wrote:
>
Thanks again.
Thanks for your responses, Guys!!
--
Daniel
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0)
Hawker wrote:
On 10/29/2019 7:08 PM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
Hawker wrote:
Thank you for this great and thorough reply and all the info you gave below as
well. This was exactly the clear concise information I was looking for.
Also thank you very much for your work on the project against
On 10/29/2019 7:08 PM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
Hawker wrote:
I'm sticking with 2.49.5 right now. I don't really want to move to the
newer builds until they are more official I don't think.
That said there is an increasing number of websites that no longer
work in SM with any UI string that
On 10/31/19 2:31 AM, Daniel wrote:
Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote on 31/10/2019 8:08 AM:
Onno Ekker wrote:
Op 30-10-2019 om 00:08 schreef Frank-Rainer Grahl:
Hawker wrote:
FRG
Could you also elaborate a bit on what's realistic for extension
developers? My extension is compatible with Thunderbird
Daniel wrote:
Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote on 31/10/2019 8:08 AM:
In any case nothing to worry about in the, lets say, next 2-3 years. 2.53.1
is working really well and I enjoy working on and with it very much. I think
the same is true for the other team members.
FRG
FRG, thanks for all
David E. Ross wrote:
On 10/30/2019 2:08 PM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
Onno Ekker wrote:
Op 30-10-2019 om 00:08 schreef Frank-Rainer Grahl:
Hawker wrote:
FRG
Will there be xul extension support in 2.53 to the same extent it is
supported in 2.49?
Yes support will be kept intact. Makes
On 31/10/19 06:31, Daniel wrote:
...
2. With each update, nowadays, you suggest we copy our profiles
before updating just in case something goes wrong (and a good
practice in any case). There used to be a program/extension called
something like *MozBackup* that would do the required
Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote on 31/10/2019 8:08 AM:
Onno Ekker wrote:
Op 30-10-2019 om 00:08 schreef Frank-Rainer Grahl:
Hawker wrote:
FRG
Could you also elaborate a bit on what's realistic for extension
developers? My extension is compatible with Thunderbird 52, 60 and 68,
and also with
On 10/30/2019 2:08 PM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
> Onno Ekker wrote:
>> Op 30-10-2019 om 00:08 schreef Frank-Rainer Grahl:
>>> Hawker wrote:
>>>
>>> FRG
>>
>> Could you also elaborate a bit on what's realistic for extension
>> developers? My extension is compatible with Thunderbird 52, 60 and 68,
Onno Ekker wrote:
Op 30-10-2019 om 00:08 schreef Frank-Rainer Grahl:
Hawker wrote:
FRG
Could you also elaborate a bit on what's realistic for extension
developers? My extension is compatible with Thunderbird 52, 60 and 68,
and also with SeaMonkey 2.49 and 2.53, but in order to be compatible
Op 30-10-2019 om 00:08 schreef Frank-Rainer Grahl:
> Hawker wrote:
>> I'm sticking with 2.49.5 right now. I don't really want to move to the
>> newer builds until they are more official I don't think.
>>
>> That said there is an increasing number of websites that no longer
>> work in SM with any
Hello ,
Thanks for your email. We have received your request 03602955 and it is being
processed by our Support team.
To leave additional comments, please reply to this email.
Best,
TheFork team
TheFork, a TripAdvisor Company
___
support-seamonkey
On 10/30/2019 12:08 AM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
.../...
http://www.wg9s.com/comm-253/
We are currently fixing and backporting bugs left and right. In parallel
we are setting up an official gitlab repo for it. We don't want to check
in around 3000 patches into a release branch in the
WaltS48 wrote:
On 10/29/19 7:08 PM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
If you try it please backup your profile. You will not be able to go back to
2.49.5. Will be upgraded (compatible with the upcoming official).
Following the dedicated profiles per installation ala Firefox/Thunderbird
because you
On 10/29/19 7:08 PM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
If you try it please backup your profile. You will not be able to go
back to 2.49.5. Will be upgraded (compatible with the upcoming official).
Following the dedicated profiles per installation ala
Firefox/Thunderbird because you have no choice,
Hawker wrote:
I'm sticking with 2.49.5 right now. I don't really want to move to the newer
builds until they are more official I don't think.
That said there is an increasing number of websites that no longer work in SM
with any UI string that work in FireFox. I wonder how many of them will
I'm sticking with 2.49.5 right now. I don't really want to move to the
newer builds until they are more official I don't think.
That said there is an increasing number of websites that no longer work
in SM with any UI string that work in FireFox. I wonder how many of
them will be fixed in a
17 matches
Mail list logo
