0.9.1 coming
-
- Posts: 1328
- Joined: September 28th, 2003, 8:58 am
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 53
- Joined: June 15th, 2004, 3:07 am
- Location: Poland
-
- Posts: 22
- Joined: April 4th, 2003, 9:54 am
Great decision Ben!
I have a question. How can authors be sure that there won't be 0.9.2? Isn't it a mistake that they have to update their themes/extensions every time any subversion is released? Is there any way to say "this will work with all 0.9.x versions"?
Second quesion: are there any locales changed between 0.9 and 0.9.1? It's quite important for localizers.
I have a question. How can authors be sure that there won't be 0.9.2? Isn't it a mistake that they have to update their themes/extensions every time any subversion is released? Is there any way to say "this will work with all 0.9.x versions"?
Second quesion: are there any locales changed between 0.9 and 0.9.1? It's quite important for localizers.
- Mav Phoenix
- Posts: 16
- Joined: June 16th, 2004, 9:22 pm
- aaron
- Posts: 3130
- Joined: November 4th, 2002, 8:49 pm
- Location: Texas
- Contact:
- Alpine
- Posts: 20
- Joined: April 8th, 2004, 11:25 am
aebrahim wrote:Ben, we should really consider fixing bug 246078 as well for 0.9.1. Delaying the release by an extra day won't hurt, but fixing the bug that often prevents Firefox from registering itself as the default browser will allow me to recommend Firefox 0.9.1 to others in good conscience. I couldn't do this with 0.9, entirely because of bug 246078.
I think this bug was fixed with a simple registry edit. I found a view comments (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=246078) about it, deleted the specified key, and it worked fine after that....
- yglodt
- Posts: 106
- Joined: May 25th, 2003, 7:30 am
- Location: Luxembourg
- Contact:
- Steffen
- Posts: 524
- Joined: May 10th, 2003, 3:17 pm
- Location: Munich
e-Gandalf, how can authors be sure the extension they write today will work with a future release and not break it? Heck, they don't even know the version number of that release. What will "1.0 Beta" be called? It has to be below 1.0. 0.9.2 maybe? Or 0.9.5?
The only more or less safe assumption that can be made is to add the "+" sign. If the extension works with 0.9.1, it will most likely work with 0.9.1+, because that's what the builds will likely to be called shortly after the release.
Regarding your second question: There are no locale changes on the 0.9.1 branch yet, compared to the 0.9 release. I already made a post to the n.p.m.l10n newsgroup.
The only more or less safe assumption that can be made is to add the "+" sign. If the extension works with 0.9.1, it will most likely work with 0.9.1+, because that's what the builds will likely to be called shortly after the release.
Regarding your second question: There are no locale changes on the 0.9.1 branch yet, compared to the 0.9 release. I already made a post to the n.p.m.l10n newsgroup.
- Steffen
- Posts: 524
- Joined: May 10th, 2003, 3:17 pm
- Location: Munich
yglodt wrote:For 0.9 users, will 0.9.1 be available through the "Software Update" functionality?
That depends on Ben bumping the pref "app.version" to 0.9.1 and someone uploading a http://update.mozilla.org/update.rdf. Users of Firefox 0.9, 0.9.0+ aviary branch builds and 0.8.0+ trunk builds would then get the update notification. A click on the update button leads them to the Firefox product page.
I'm pretty sure Ben will do that as it's a great opportunity to test the new Software Update feature.
Last edited by Steffen on June 24th, 2004, 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 253
- Joined: October 9th, 2003, 12:49 am
- Location: California
This is probably not the best thread to discuss this problem but I agree with the folks commenting on having to update extensions and themes every time the Firefox version number changes. It is a good idea to have something in place to ensure that legacy addons cannot be installed but the problems caused by the version changing from 0.9 to 0.9.0+ were a bit absurd.
- Steffen
- Posts: 524
- Joined: May 10th, 2003, 3:17 pm
- Location: Munich
- Nitin
- Moderator
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: February 27th, 2003, 9:38 pm
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
It might help to decouple extension manager and firefox version numbers. Extensions should only have to list which EM version they're compatible with.Steffen wrote:e-Gandalf, how can authors be sure the extension they write today will work with a future release and not break it? Heck, they don't even know the version number of that release. What will "1.0 Beta" be called? It has to be below 1.0. 0.9.2 maybe? Or 0.9.5?
If you're not using Firefox, you're not surfing the web, you're suffering it.
Join the MZ folding@home team.
Join the MZ folding@home team.