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 s
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
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 dec
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 n
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 dec
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 edic
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
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 lat
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, mix
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
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
wo
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
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
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 t
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 wo
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 annoy
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 s
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
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 mat
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 t
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 bug
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 sam
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
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
>
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
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 versio
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,
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 ne
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
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.
Las
30 matches
Mail list logo
