On 8/18/2011 5:35 AM, Peter Boulding wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 04:25:31 -0500, Ron Hunter<[email protected]> wrote
in<[email protected]>:
On 8/17/2011 9:54 PM, Peter Boulding wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:33:59 -0700, Sailfish
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
[mozilla.support.seamonkey,mozilla.support.firefox reinserted]
A quick search of this newsgroup would have shown you that this topic
has been brought up several times and deemed OFF-TOPIC for this
newsgroup.
"Has been deemed?" You should listen to yourself.
The current "let's replace version numbers with 'up to date' or 'not up to
date' and sod add-ons" idiocy is so stunningly crass and so rightly
controversial that it's going to get discussed *everywhere* whether you like
it or not... and no amount of "off topic here there and everywhere else
apart from the Free Speech Zone we set up well away from the building" is
going to stop it.
It is such an earth-shatteringly important thing, right?
Look where it's going:
<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=678775>
Money quote:
"It is part of the phasing out of version numbers in Firefox that's already
well under way (though still incomplete.)"
I believe the intent is to just give you a 'latest version', or 'You
need an update' and just display 'Firefox', without a version number. I
can't see why this is vitally important as long as the actual
version/build is available somewhere for troubleshooting purposes, and
even then, it isn't always important.
Personally, I can't see why it hurts to have the version and build ID
listed, but the devs seem to think this isn't useful.
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
