Jay Garcia wrote:
On 30.11.2009 08:58, J. Weaver Jr. wrote:
--- Original Message ---
Jay Garcia wrote:
On 30.11.2009 08:35, Benoit Renard wrote:
--- Original Message ---
John Boyle wrote:
My evaluation of 2.0 is that it is somewhat faster as a browser, but,
as with all the others, the email and newsgroups stink, still! I did
NOT want to even download it, but was persuaded by a couple of people,
however, nobody seems to want to tackle the FACT that version 2.0 IS
TERRIBLY DEFICIENT IN THE EMAIL AND NEWSGROUPS DEPARTMENTS, as people
have been saying, CONSTANTLY, and the developers JUST SIMPLY REFUSE TO
LISTEN TO ANY CRITICISM, EVEN IF BASED ON FACT!
Please don't confuse "Robert Kaiser", the most prominent developer,
with
"the developers".
I'm a developer, even if I don't contribute all that often, and I will
tell you this: SeaMonkey 2.0's mailnews part is based on a beta version
of Thunderbird 3.0. When Thunderbird 3.0 is done, the next release of
SeaMonkey 2.0 will incorporate all the fixes, and hopefully be more
reliable in that department.
Why is a "release" based on a "beta" ?
Yeah - seems like a bad decision on somebody's part... -JW
Well, I realize it was an incomplete question as ALL releases are based
on "betas" but I think the meaning was transmitted - why is a SM release
based on a TB beta where there are as yet unresolved bugs?
There is not too much or no Gecko mailnews bugs, which SM and TB
sharing. TB is beta because of it's UI bugs or parts of mailnews that SM
not uses, so it's pretty safe to go "gold". It's a good decision, some
open source software take years in beta or even alpha, which doesn't
prevent them to be as stable as releases.
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
