0.9.1 coming

Discussion of general topics about Mozilla Firefox
Post Reply
Greg K Nicholson
Posts: 1328
Joined: September 28th, 2003, 8:58 am
Contact:

Post by Greg K Nicholson »

Good decision.
PMW@Orange
Posts: 53
Joined: June 15th, 2004, 3:07 am
Location: Poland

Post by PMW@Orange »

Jack wrote:I'd also like to see 247284 fixed. If that is impossible, then I'd like to see the Software Update options turned off by default until it is fixed.

Dido. If it isn't working - don't include it. Simple.
e-Gandalf
Posts: 22
Joined: April 4th, 2003, 9:54 am

Post by e-Gandalf »

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.
User avatar
Mav Phoenix
Posts: 16
Joined: June 16th, 2004, 9:22 pm

Post by Mav Phoenix »

Good deal. 0.9 was botched in a lot of ways.
User avatar
aaron
Posts: 3130
Joined: November 4th, 2002, 8:49 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by aaron »

e-Gandalf, I agree with the 1st question!
User avatar
Alpine
Posts: 20
Joined: April 8th, 2004, 11:25 am

Post by Alpine »

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....
User avatar
yglodt
Posts: 106
Joined: May 25th, 2003, 7:30 am
Location: Luxembourg
Contact:

Post by yglodt »

For 0.9 users, will 0.9.1 be available through the "Software Update" functionality?
Dr_Cogent
Posts: 49
Joined: December 8th, 2003, 12:12 pm

Post by Dr_Cogent »

Since the Save As functionality was modified, please give us the ability to set our options to get it to work the way it worked in 0.8

<a href="http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=244961">Bug 244961</a>
User avatar
Steffen
Posts: 524
Joined: May 10th, 2003, 3:17 pm
Location: Munich

Post by Steffen »

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.
User avatar
Steffen
Posts: 524
Joined: May 10th, 2003, 3:17 pm
Location: Munich

Post by Steffen »

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.
djl47
Posts: 253
Joined: October 9th, 2003, 12:49 am
Location: California

Post by djl47 »

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.
User avatar
Steffen
Posts: 524
Joined: May 10th, 2003, 3:17 pm
Location: Munich

Post by Steffen »

djl47, I agree, but the new extension management is brand new, and everybody has to make his experiences with it, especially when new versions of Firefox are released.

EDIT: now I've edited every single post I made in this thread :-/
ckjnigel
Posts: 285
Joined: November 5th, 2002, 12:37 am

Post by ckjnigel »

BG: "0.9 release has highlighted a few issues..."
-- nicely understated!
This is the RIGHT thing to do.
User avatar
Nitin
Moderator
Posts: 3483
Joined: February 27th, 2003, 9:38 pm
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Post by Nitin »

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?
It might help to decouple extension manager and firefox version numbers. Extensions should only have to list which EM version they're compatible with.
If you're not using Firefox, you're not surfing the web, you're suffering it.
Join the MZ folding@home team.
User avatar
Steffen
Posts: 524
Joined: May 10th, 2003, 3:17 pm
Location: Munich

Post by Steffen »

vfwlkr, I think one of the reasons for the new extension management is to avoid installing outdated extensions which break the app.
Post Reply