MozillaZine

0.9.1 coming

Discussion of general topics about Mozilla Firefox
PhoenixNostalgia

User avatar
 
Posts: 562
Joined: September 27th, 2003, 10:13 pm

Post Posted June 25th, 2004, 12:12 am

adamb wrote:Whoa! Major upgrade to Winstripe! It looks good! I'm quite impressed with the primary five icons. I will miss the directional triangles. I thought they were a neat "different" feel, but the new forward and back arrows are just great. Refresh looks super. So does "stop." The house is pretty standard fare, although much more like Qute than Winstripe's first take at it. Losing the low-laying shadows was probably a good choice, considering how non-Windows-y that style of shadow is.

I'm... still... waiting... for the <strong>new</strong> "new tab" icon -- one that <em>doesn't</em> look like a toaster. Other "secondary" icons I'm assuming will be updated to fit more with this style?

But seriously, this is great. Small icons look good, too! Great job to Gerich and Horlander! It seems there was a dramatic response to feedback generated regarding the theme.


I will post screens soon as I get it for those of you curious people.

And here it is. Much better than the Winstripe for 0.9, although I still think those back/forward buttons can look better.

I'm using the Office2003 enhancement to fix the spacing between icons and clean up the interface for Windows Classic.

Image
Last edited by PhoenixNostalgia on June 25th, 2004, 4:08 am, edited 3 times in total.

Walter K
 
Posts: 45
Joined: November 8th, 2002, 3:12 pm

Post Posted June 25th, 2004, 12:27 am

scratch wrote:
Steffen wrote:vfwlkr, I think one of the reasons for the new extension management is to avoid installing outdated extensions which break the app.


so just bump the EM version number any time you make a change that would make extensions incompatible. don't bump the EM version when you release a new version of FF that lets old extensions still work. [snip]

Extensions are, well, _extensions_ to Firefox, not to extension manager, download manager, or something else. Therefore, version number of extension manager has no meaning. Extensions are designed to work with specific product; in this case it's a version of Firefox. The fact that the same extensions work with both FF 0.9 and FF 0.9.1 is coincidental.

TheOneKEA

User avatar
 
Posts: 4864
Joined: October 16th, 2003, 5:47 am
Location: Somewhere in London, riding the Underground

Post Posted June 25th, 2004, 1:21 am

I have one request:

Could the phantom DOM Inspector entry be removed please?
Proud user of teh Fox of Fire
Registered Linux User #289618

raananb
 
Posts: 579
Joined: July 21st, 2003, 9:44 pm
Location: Boulogne, France

Post Posted June 25th, 2004, 1:23 am

Steffen wrote:
sasquatch wrote:So, the answer is...?
The answer is: Most likely yes. ;-)
Try to get an answer from Ben if you can't wait.

sasquatch wrote:Yeah, but if your extensions get disabled, does that also disable your ability to update them?
No. On starting a new release of Firefox the first time, you get a dialog informing you which extensions and themes were disabled. It also provides an update button.
Besides, disabled extensions are still listed in the extension manager and can be updated by clicking the update button.


This process is still not good enough for a product aimed at the public at large. OK, an extension is disabled and the user has the option of enabling it (with or wthout update). If there is no update, then it is presumed that the extension is compatible, but this is in no way guaranteed, and if Firefox fails, then from the user point of view it will be a Firefox issue and not an extension issue.

One way to solve this may be to have a formal acceptance test by the Mozilla team of all extensions listed as valid on Mozilla Extension room when a new version version is released, and acting on the result of that test.

Linuxn00b
 
Posts: 10
Joined: February 12th, 2004, 3:31 am

Post Posted June 25th, 2004, 5:22 am

I think this deserves a separate thread as it deals with Fx development in general rather than with 0.9.1 :
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=90682

Cryomenace

User avatar
 
Posts: 42
Joined: May 10th, 2003, 1:06 am
Location: Denmark

Post Posted June 25th, 2004, 5:43 am

[edit]picture deleted[/edit]

But where do you download it? Latest branch says v0.9.0+ and does not feature updated Winstripe theme?!
Last edited by Cryomenace on June 25th, 2004, 6:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050225 Firefox/1.0.1

PhoenixNostalgia

User avatar
 
Posts: 562
Joined: September 27th, 2003, 10:13 pm

Post Posted June 25th, 2004, 5:57 am

Cryomenace wrote:But where do you download it? Latest branch says v0.9.0+ and does not feature updated Winstripe theme?!


http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/ ... -18-0.9.1/

Latest directory I could find.

And please don't quote images. It's coming off of my server space.

Greg K Nicholson

User avatar
 
Posts: 1328
Joined: September 28th, 2003, 8:58 am

Post Posted June 25th, 2004, 6:33 am

Good call on keeping the version number.

I think in future, there needs to be a mechanism of declaring (e.g.) 1.2.x as a compatible version - perhaps the definition of "1.2" as Firefox/u.m.o interprets it could be modified to mean "1.2.x", instead of "1.2.0".

The upgrade to Winstripe is excellent (based on the shot) - it'll give people impetus to upgrade from 0.9.

(neoufo51, if the image is on the page it's only downloaded once per viewer, no matter how many times it's repeated on the page; so you needn't worry about your bandwidth. But I agree quoting images is annoying, cos it wastes space.)

Cryomenace

User avatar
 
Posts: 42
Joined: May 10th, 2003, 1:06 am
Location: Denmark

Post Posted June 25th, 2004, 6:38 am

neoufo51 wrote:http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/ ... -18-0.9.1/

Latest directory I could find.

And please don't quote images. It's coming off of my server space.


Aah, the one place I forgot to look..

Thanks neoufo51 :D

P.S. I'm sorry about the picture quote, consider it removed :)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050225 Firefox/1.0.1

Racer
 
Posts: 6108
Joined: November 18th, 2002, 11:07 am

Post Posted June 25th, 2004, 8:39 am

Greg K Nicholson wrote:I think in future, there needs to be a mechanism of declaring (e.g.) 1.2.x as a compatible version - perhaps the definition of "1.2" as Firefox/u.m.o interprets it could be modified to mean "1.2.x", instead of "1.2.0".
For this case, the extension author would set the min-supported FF version as 1.2 and the max-supported version as 1.2.9. A method similar to this will hopefully be used by all extension authors once FF 1.0 is released. Personally, I hope that authors will make their extensions workable from FF 1.0 on, so they would use min-version 1.0 and max-version 1.2.9, but that is up to them.

orizng

User avatar
 
Posts: 693
Joined: November 8th, 2002, 7:25 pm
Location: DALLAS,TX

Post Posted June 25th, 2004, 8:47 am

the 'refresh' button looks so weird

sizemoresr
 
Posts: 13
Joined: August 25th, 2003, 6:20 pm

Post Posted June 25th, 2004, 8:47 am

neoufo51 wrote:NICE. Those bugs in particular really piss me off.

Updates to Winstripe make this release sound all the sweeter!


Here is a screen shot of the NEW theme: http://www.sizemoresr.com/Steve/fftheme ... mes091.htm

Looks like all the buttons in the nav bar have been improved upon!

sasquatch
 
Posts: 6022
Joined: November 25th, 2003, 8:56 am

Post Posted June 25th, 2004, 8:51 am

got this error, not sure if with the build, or with download manager tweak extension:

Image


Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040624 Firefox/0.9.0+ (bangbang023)

Download Manager Tweak 0.5.0

sasquatch
 
Posts: 6022
Joined: November 25th, 2003, 8:56 am

Post Posted June 25th, 2004, 8:54 am

Steffen wrote:Firefox 0.9.1 will be made from the FIREFOX_0_9_1_BRANCH, which is basically the FIREFOX_0_9_RELEASE plus fixes for the bugs Ben mentioned in his post. So the question is not which bugs will be fixed until the release, but rather which fixes will be ported from the aviary branch to the 0.9.1 branch.
...


Actually, wouldn't it "trickle up" from the 0.9.1 branch to the "aviary" branch to the trunk in that order since each is a subset of the next?

I would think so.

TheOneKEA

User avatar
 
Posts: 4864
Joined: October 16th, 2003, 5:47 am
Location: Somewhere in London, riding the Underground

Post Posted June 25th, 2004, 8:56 am

sasquatch wrote:got this error, not sure if with the build, or with download manager tweak extension:

Image


Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040624 Firefox/0.9.0+ (bangbang023)

Download Manager Tweak 0.5.0


Bug 246618.

Uninstall the Download Manager Tweak extension and install this instead:

http://www.pryan.org/mozilla/site/TheOn ... ak_051.xpi
Proud user of teh Fox of Fire
Registered Linux User #289618

Return to Firefox General


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests