On 3/15/12 4:11 PM, David E. Ross wrote: > On 3/15/12 3:44 PM, Jens Hatlak wrote: >> Philip TAYLOR wrote: >>> But I still have no clear recollection of the Seamonkey team >>> approaching this list with ideas for future versions of Seamonkey >>> and asking for feedback on acceptability. >> >> For the latter part: That's because we don't do that. It would probably >> bring development to a full halt (and I think it already is way too >> slow, but I wouldn't be surprised if we disagreed about that). Anyway, >> in this case that doesn't really matter since, as Callek said, the >> change was made in core code by core (read: Firefox) developers. In such >> cases, unless they provide a preference to disable the new behavior that >> we could flip, there's not much we can do (other than forking code, >> which is stupid). [Please ignore the aspect that it wasn't mentioned in >> our relnotes, that was just an oversight.] >> >> Ideas for future versions are usually discussed in Bugzilla bugs or on >> SeaMonkey Status Meetings (which happen in the open on IRC, and we >> provide meeting notes on the wiki). >> >>> Could you please let me (us) know whether that is the norm, or are >>> all decisions as to the evolutionary route taken by a central cadre >>> without seeking the advice and opinions of the subscribers to this >>> list ? >> >> Changes, especially core code ones, are usually only discussed in the >> respective Bugzilla bugs, or maybe in some cases in meetings that I >> don't attend (don't know). For SM changes it's similar (except the >> meetings part); if developers are likely to disagree or need feedback on >> technical aspects, the m.d.a.seamonkey newsgroup will be the place of >> further discussion (unless it's somehow confidential, for which we have >> mailing lists with a limited audience). For user facing changes that >> cannot be turned off (happens rarely for SM-only code), discussion might >> happen here (but no guarantee). >> >> HTH >> >> Jens >> > > Was there a bug report on this in bugzilla.mozilla.org? If so, what was > the bug number? >
Never mind. It's bug #376997 at <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=376997>. And that bug makes a very wrong assumption that stand-alone images appear against a white background. They appear against the user's chosen background color, pale green in my case. -- David E. Ross <http://www.rossde.com/>. Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation. © 1997 by David E. Ross _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
