On 20.09.2010 19:34, Phillip Jones wrote: --- Original Message ---
> Jay Garcia wrote: >> On 20.09.2010 16:09, Ray_Net wrote: >> >> --- Original Message --- >> >>> W3BNR wrote: >>>> On 9/20/2010 5:05 AM Ray_Net wrote: >>>>> Philip Chee wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:20:48 -0400, Phillip Jones wrote: >>>>>>> Jay Garcia wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is not true, please stop spreading misinformation. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I've never seen a case where developers corrected a bug a user >>>>>>> found. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are not looking hard enough. Look harder. I fixed the following >>>>>> bugs: >>>>>> >>>>>> Bug 86400 reported by David Carroll >>>>>> Bug 156734 reported by Jeremy M. Dolan >>>>>> Bug 388349 reported by Ed >>>>>> Bug 395371 reported by arno renevier >>>>>> Bug 414014 reported by Eyal Rozenberg >>>>>> Bug 482433 reported by Chris Wimlett >>>>>> Bug 534248 reported by Aleksej >>>>>> Bug 534322 reported by Kevin Brosnan >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually I fixed more but I got bored searching through bugzilla. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Could you fix this >>>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218258 >>>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=595696 >>>>> >>>>> or tell me how can i fix it >>>> >>>> "Bug" 218258 - only 28 votes in 7 years? I don't think it will get >>>> "fixed". More of a new feature request than a bug. >>> >>> Only 28 votes .... and you forgot the huge list of bugs closed because a >>> duplicate of this one. >>> >>>> Anyhow 'gator' on April 4, 2010, suggested a work-a-round. See comment >>>> #61 at the bug page. This should satisfy the few that need the >>>> function. >>> >>> NO this doesnot statify the request - In addition the asked thing is >>> already coded in the forward mechanism - this mechanism could be easely >>> called when doing a "reply" - this not a great job to be done. >>>> >>> >>> You speak about the fact that this bug should be an RFE .... this why i >>> created https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=595696 which is a >>> RFE ... this RFE will stay at it is for another cycle of 7 years or >>> more. As Phillip Jones said: 'developers believe that users can't know >>> what they want, that only developers know what users want. And tend to >>> ignore users wishes.' and i add : Evenwhile if the work to be done is >>> mimimal. >> >> If it's "minimal" than add a comment to your RFE explaining the minimal >> steps in detail so that programmers reading it will get it and do it in >> their spare time. >> > Finally Found the bug I was referring to: > > mine is 597784 > > original is: > > 580442 > > It has title as described. By some of the contents of some developers > its appears to be a deliberate attempt to limit users' abilities to do > what they want. > > now go read both. > > then come back and say I like to spread stuff around. > > As I've commented in both I will remain at 2.0.6 until the code its > removed, a way to bypass in about:config is figured out, or someone > comes up with a hack to turn that code off. > > also I suggested (I did not say how easy) that to go at it, from users > point of view, and put in a Preference to turn off receiving such > specific items. That way the people that need it have it, can. Those > that don't want to see it, can turn it off. > They're all against you Phillip, only you. -- *Jay Garcia - Netscape/Flock Champion* www.ufaq.org Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Flock - Thunderbird _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
