Phillip Jones wrote:
Philip Chee wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:53:55 +0100, Robert Kaiser wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
You actually have time for vacation?? :-)
I needed to make time to avoid burn-out. And I could do so in November,
those three weeks were worth every second. ;-)
I agree. Si
Phillip Jones wrote:
J. Weaver Jr. wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
Retirement is no fun after the first year.
You're doing it wrong. -JW (retired 10 years and still loving it)
The problem is money. If you have money. But living in Social Security,
you lucky to just pay your bills.
Ah. Un
J. Weaver Jr. wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
Retirement is no fun after the first year.
You're doing it wrong. -JW (retired 10 years and still loving it)
The problem is money. If you have money. But living in Social Security,
you lucky to just pay your bills. Just like I'd love to get a new l
Phillip Jones wrote:
Retirement is no fun after the first year.
You're doing it wrong. -JW (retired 10 years and still loving it)
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seam
Philip Chee wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:53:55 +0100, Robert Kaiser wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
You actually have time for vacation?? :-)
I needed to make time to avoid burn-out. And I could do so in November,
those three weeks were worth every second. ;-)
I agree. Since coming back from h
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:53:55 +0100, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Phillip Jones wrote:
>> You actually have time for vacation?? :-)
>
> I needed to make time to avoid burn-out. And I could do so in November,
> those three weeks were worth every second. ;-)
I agree. Since coming back from his vacation K
Phillip Jones wrote:
You actually have time for vacation?? :-)
I needed to make time to avoid burn-out. And I could do so in November,
those three weeks were worth every second. ;-)
I just update to 2.0.1 seems to cleared up a problem I turned into
Bugzilla a week or two ago.
Good to hear
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
SM2.0.1 was supposed to come out
the same exact time FF3.5.5 was to hit the streets.
FF 3.5.5 was a very short-cycle crash-fix-only release and we didn't
have the resources to create an update at that time (mostly because our
only build and release eng
Phillip Jones wrote:
SM2.0.1 was supposed to come out
the same exact time FF3.5.5 was to hit the streets.
FF 3.5.5 was a very short-cycle crash-fix-only release and we didn't
have the resources to create an update at that time (mostly because our
only build and release engineer, that is my hu
NoOp wrote:
On 12/15/2009 11:21 AM, Jens Hatlak wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
David Wilkinson wrote:
Why do I see all the references to SM 2.0.1 when the latest official
version is
(AFAICT) SM 2.0?
But believe I read either in this
forum or perhaps on the SM group, that SM2.0.1 was supposed to
On 12/15/2009 11:21 AM, Jens Hatlak wrote:
> Phillip Jones wrote:
>> David Wilkinson wrote:
>>> Why do I see all the references to SM 2.0.1 when the latest official
>>> version is
>>> (AFAICT) SM 2.0?
>>>
>> But believe I read either in this
>> forum or perhaps on the SM group, that SM2.0.1 was sup
Jens Hatlak wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
David Wilkinson wrote:
Why do I see all the references to SM 2.0.1 when the latest official
version is
(AFAICT) SM 2.0?
But believe I read either in this
forum or perhaps on the SM group, that SM2.0.1 was supposed to come out
the same exact time FF3.5.5
David Wilkinson wrote:
Why do I see all the references to SM 2.0.1 when the latest official
version is (AFAICT) SM 2.0?
Thanks all. I got it now. It's the release candidate.
--
David Wilkinson
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@list
David Wilkinson wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
David Wilkinson wrote:
Why do I see all the references to SM 2.0.1 when the latest official
version is
(AFAICT) SM 2.0?
/snip/
So all these people talking about SM 2.0.1 are using the nightlies? I
think you must be right, but this is not generally
Phillip Jones wrote:
> David Wilkinson wrote:
>> Why do I see all the references to SM 2.0.1 when the latest official
>> version is
>> (AFAICT) SM 2.0?
>>
> But believe I read either in this
> forum or perhaps on the SM group, that SM2.0.1 was supposed to come out
> the same exact time FF3.5.5 was
Phillip Jones wrote:
David Wilkinson wrote:
Why do I see all the references to SM 2.0.1 when the latest official
version is
(AFAICT) SM 2.0?
I know about using nighties I used to do that myself to test and
comment. When the comments went in one ear and out the other I quit
using nighties. I
David Wilkinson wrote:
Why do I see all the references to SM 2.0.1 when the latest official version is
(AFAICT) SM 2.0?
I know about using nighties I used to do that myself to test and
comment. When the comments went in one ear and out the other I quit
using nighties. I figured my comments did
Why do I see all the references to SM 2.0.1 when the latest official version is
(AFAICT) SM 2.0?
--
David Wilkinson
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
18 matches
Mail list logo
