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 not keeping a "stable"
version of the software supported."
I just intalled 2.1 because t was presented as the best, now 2.2 is the
best, 2.3 is not far from 2.2, etc .... should we consider 2.x changes
as minor release so we can jump from 2.0 to 2.1, or 2.2 or 2.3 or 2.4 or
2.5 ?
More frequent release = less difference between releases.
But those differences are not restricted. Previously updates to 2.0.x
would be restricted to security and stability fixes. API changes were
not allowed until the next major release.
With a major release in 3.0 where perhaps we need to be in 2.5
when we decided to go to 3.0 ... without the possibility to go from 2.0
to 2.0 ?
I have no idea if there is a plan for SeaMonkey 3.0. One element of the
rapid release cycle for Firefox is that version numbers are not marketed
at all.
--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
