Jay Garcia wrote:
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.
Yep.
Actually I've been told a fix is in the works.
Its curious that we been doing what as in 2.0.6 and lower since
Communicator Day's about 12 years or more and they just decide it was
supposed to be a security risk. I have seen anything risky out it for 12
or more years.
This will be my last post on "this" issue. Don't rock any boat if a fix
is in the works.
--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net/ mailto:[email protected]
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
