Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:33:59 -0700, Sailfish removecapssailf...@removecapsunforgettable.com wrote in hdwdnfio_41crthtnz2dnuvz_v-dn...@mozilla.org: [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. -- Regards, Peter Boulding pjbne...@unspampboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove UNSPAM) Fractal Images and Music: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/ http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=794240content=music ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 04:25:31 -0500, Ron Hunter rphun...@charter.net wrote in xnudnaqn_4exr9htnz2dnuvz_rydn...@mozilla.org: On 8/17/2011 9:54 PM, Peter Boulding wrote: On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:33:59 -0700, Sailfish removecapssailf...@removecapsunforgettable.com wrote in hdwdnfio_41crthtnz2dnuvz_v-dn...@mozilla.org: [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.) -- Regards, Peter Boulding pjbne...@unspampboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove UNSPAM) Fractal Images and Music: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/ http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=794240content=music ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
Michael Gordon wrote: Daniel wrote: Michael Gordon wrote: Daniel wrote: Ron Hunter wrote: On 8/29/2011 8:16 AM, Daniel wrote: John wrote: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. The web browser and email client are critically important to me, and I think the majority of users would agree. Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? Changes in program behavior should be fully documented in advance of an upgrade. Users who prefer the behavior of the old version should be given the option to retain it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The end user should not be forced to be the guinea pig whose feedback becomes the quality control for these programs. Please return to the former more careful release strategy. I worked as an electrical engineer for Motorola for many years. All too often, we had products being sold before they were designed and unrelenting pressure to push them out the door. There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over was the cynical opinion of many of my colleagues. It seems like the software industry is the same way. Is it really rapid-release?? SeaMonkey 1.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.0.9 - twelve releases over twenty months. SeaMonkey 1.1 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.1.19 - twenty two releases over forty three months. SeaMonkey 2.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey to SeaMonkey 2.0.14 - twenty two releases over thirty months. Should the question really be *What's the difference??* There are a lot of differences, but the primary one is that the new release system includes NOT just bug and security fixes, but NEW FEATURES. There is also an ongoing User Interface redesign that is taking place slowly since FF4. I can't see that just how they choose to number releases affects any aspect of either use, or utility, of a release. Getting new features, and other 'non-bug/security' fixes to the user-base as quickly as possible means the FF can remain competitive in a rather difficult market. I, for one, think the new system is fantastic, and makes the product more useful, and more 'current'. What numbers are applied, I will let others discuss because it doesn't matter to me. The point, which I apparently failed to make, is that SM updates have always happened fairly often, so I don't see what the problem with six weekly updates is?? Daniel, There should not be any problem with the weekly updates as long as the first in the series contains fully documented changes to how important user tools and option perform. Example: When upgrading from SM 2.0 to 2.1 all user tools and options that have been improved from the previous version need to be fully documented within the application Help Files. Major security fixes need to be fully documented where those fixes may change the behavior over the older version. When making a minor version change (2.0.1 to 2.0.2) or (2.2.1 to 2.2.2) for security patches those changes must not change any user tools or operations. If a security patch is required that will affect user options then a new version level needs to be created with full documentation. Full documentation does not mean disclosing the code base in question, but dose mean how the changes will affect user experience with the new upgrade. Failure to perform these simple tasks will drive more users back to MS Internet Explorer and Outlook. Conclusion: The number of security patches is very important to keep our applications secure from the nasty world of Hackers and Crackers trying to infect our computers. At the same time the new and improved updates/upgrades must document the changes and how they may affect user experience. I don't mind having one, two, or three security upgrades a week if those upgrades do not affect how I use SM, and if they may affect my use of SM how do the changes affect how I use SM. Michael G Michael, back a bit I reported that I was having a problem so, after upgrading, when I clicked on the Browser Icon (I normally just start in Mail News), I was being taken to a SeaMonkey-Project page which advised of the problems/improvements made in the upgrade rather than my Home Group. This was a desired situation (by the developers) which, I think, could be switched off in prefs.js Has this function been changed?? In an upgrade it may have changed some basic preferences. When you write the Browser Icon are you referring to the SeaMonkey icon on your desktop? As I typed above, I normally just start in Mail News, so when I typed Browser Icon, I mean the one in the bottom left of the Mail News screen. You can change how SM opens in the Edit/Preferences/Appearance by selecting the
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
Daniel wrote: Michael Gordon wrote: Daniel wrote: Ron Hunter wrote: On 8/29/2011 8:16 AM, Daniel wrote: John wrote: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. The web browser and email client are critically important to me, and I think the majority of users would agree. Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? Changes in program behavior should be fully documented in advance of an upgrade. Users who prefer the behavior of the old version should be given the option to retain it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The end user should not be forced to be the guinea pig whose feedback becomes the quality control for these programs. Please return to the former more careful release strategy. I worked as an electrical engineer for Motorola for many years. All too often, we had products being sold before they were designed and unrelenting pressure to push them out the door. There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over was the cynical opinion of many of my colleagues. It seems like the software industry is the same way. Is it really rapid-release?? SeaMonkey 1.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.0.9 - twelve releases over twenty months. SeaMonkey 1.1 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.1.19 - twenty two releases over forty three months. SeaMonkey 2.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey to SeaMonkey 2.0.14 - twenty two releases over thirty months. Should the question really be *What's the difference??* There are a lot of differences, but the primary one is that the new release system includes NOT just bug and security fixes, but NEW FEATURES. There is also an ongoing User Interface redesign that is taking place slowly since FF4. I can't see that just how they choose to number releases affects any aspect of either use, or utility, of a release. Getting new features, and other 'non-bug/security' fixes to the user-base as quickly as possible means the FF can remain competitive in a rather difficult market. I, for one, think the new system is fantastic, and makes the product more useful, and more 'current'. What numbers are applied, I will let others discuss because it doesn't matter to me. The point, which I apparently failed to make, is that SM updates have always happened fairly often, so I don't see what the problem with six weekly updates is?? Daniel, There should not be any problem with the weekly updates as long as the first in the series contains fully documented changes to how important user tools and option perform. Example: When upgrading from SM 2.0 to 2.1 all user tools and options that have been improved from the previous version need to be fully documented within the application Help Files. Major security fixes need to be fully documented where those fixes may change the behavior over the older version. When making a minor version change (2.0.1 to 2.0.2) or (2.2.1 to 2.2.2) for security patches those changes must not change any user tools or operations. If a security patch is required that will affect user options then a new version level needs to be created with full documentation. Full documentation does not mean disclosing the code base in question, but dose mean how the changes will affect user experience with the new upgrade. Failure to perform these simple tasks will drive more users back to MS Internet Explorer and Outlook. Conclusion: The number of security patches is very important to keep our applications secure from the nasty world of Hackers and Crackers trying to infect our computers. At the same time the new and improved updates/upgrades must document the changes and how they may affect user experience. I don't mind having one, two, or three security upgrades a week if those upgrades do not affect how I use SM, and if they may affect my use of SM how do the changes affect how I use SM. Michael G Michael, back a bit I reported that I was having a problem so, after upgrading, when I clicked on the Browser Icon (I normally just start in Mail News), I was being taken to a SeaMonkey-Project page which advised of the problems/improvements made in the upgrade rather than my Home Group. This was a desired situation (by the developers) which, I think, could be switched off in prefs.js Has this function been changed?? In an upgrade it may have changed some basic preferences. When you write the Browser Icon are you referring to the SeaMonkey icon on your desktop? You can change how SM opens in the Edit/Preferences/Appearance by selecting the options to open mail and browser. By selecting both mail and browser your mail will open on top of the web browser. The only way I know of to open just the mail using
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
John wrote: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. The web browser and email client are critically important to me, and I think the majority of users would agree. Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? Changes in program behavior should be fully documented in advance of an upgrade. Users who prefer the behavior of the old version should be given the option to retain it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The end user should not be forced to be the guinea pig whose feedback becomes the quality control for these programs. Please return to the former more careful release strategy. I worked as an electrical engineer for Motorola for many years. All too often, we had products being sold before they were designed and unrelenting pressure to push them out the door. There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over was the cynical opinion of many of my colleagues. It seems like the software industry is the same way. Is it really rapid-release?? SeaMonkey 1.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.0.9 - twelve releases over twenty months. SeaMonkey 1.1 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.1.19 - twenty two releases over forty three months. SeaMonkey 2.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey to SeaMonkey 2.0.14 - twenty two releases over thirty months. Should the question really be *What's the difference??* -- Daniel ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
On 8/29/2011 8:16 AM, Daniel wrote: John wrote: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. The web browser and email client are critically important to me, and I think the majority of users would agree. Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? Changes in program behavior should be fully documented in advance of an upgrade. Users who prefer the behavior of the old version should be given the option to retain it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The end user should not be forced to be the guinea pig whose feedback becomes the quality control for these programs. Please return to the former more careful release strategy. I worked as an electrical engineer for Motorola for many years. All too often, we had products being sold before they were designed and unrelenting pressure to push them out the door. There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over was the cynical opinion of many of my colleagues. It seems like the software industry is the same way. Is it really rapid-release?? SeaMonkey 1.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.0.9 - twelve releases over twenty months. SeaMonkey 1.1 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.1.19 - twenty two releases over forty three months. SeaMonkey 2.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey to SeaMonkey 2.0.14 - twenty two releases over thirty months. Should the question really be *What's the difference??* There are a lot of differences, but the primary one is that the new release system includes NOT just bug and security fixes, but NEW FEATURES. There is also an ongoing User Interface redesign that is taking place slowly since FF4. I can't see that just how they choose to number releases affects any aspect of either use, or utility, of a release. Getting new features, and other 'non-bug/security' fixes to the user-base as quickly as possible means the FF can remain competitive in a rather difficult market. I, for one, think the new system is fantastic, and makes the product more useful, and more 'current'. What numbers are applied, I will let others discuss because it doesn't matter to me. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
Ron Hunter wrote: On 8/29/2011 8:16 AM, Daniel wrote: John wrote: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. The web browser and email client are critically important to me, and I think the majority of users would agree. Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? Changes in program behavior should be fully documented in advance of an upgrade. Users who prefer the behavior of the old version should be given the option to retain it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The end user should not be forced to be the guinea pig whose feedback becomes the quality control for these programs. Please return to the former more careful release strategy. I worked as an electrical engineer for Motorola for many years. All too often, we had products being sold before they were designed and unrelenting pressure to push them out the door. There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over was the cynical opinion of many of my colleagues. It seems like the software industry is the same way. Is it really rapid-release?? SeaMonkey 1.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.0.9 - twelve releases over twenty months. SeaMonkey 1.1 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.1.19 - twenty two releases over forty three months. SeaMonkey 2.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey to SeaMonkey 2.0.14 - twenty two releases over thirty months. Should the question really be *What's the difference??* There are a lot of differences, but the primary one is that the new release system includes NOT just bug and security fixes, but NEW FEATURES. There is also an ongoing User Interface redesign that is taking place slowly since FF4. I can't see that just how they choose to number releases affects any aspect of either use, or utility, of a release. Getting new features, and other 'non-bug/security' fixes to the user-base as quickly as possible means the FF can remain competitive in a rather difficult market. I, for one, think the new system is fantastic, and makes the product more useful, and more 'current'. What numbers are applied, I will let others discuss because it doesn't matter to me. The point, which I apparently failed to make, is that SM updates have always happened fairly often, so I don't see what the problem with six weekly updates is?? -- Daniel ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
Daniel wrote: Ron Hunter wrote: On 8/29/2011 8:16 AM, Daniel wrote: John wrote: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. The web browser and email client are critically important to me, and I think the majority of users would agree. Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? Changes in program behavior should be fully documented in advance of an upgrade. Users who prefer the behavior of the old version should be given the option to retain it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The end user should not be forced to be the guinea pig whose feedback becomes the quality control for these programs. Please return to the former more careful release strategy. I worked as an electrical engineer for Motorola for many years. All too often, we had products being sold before they were designed and unrelenting pressure to push them out the door. There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over was the cynical opinion of many of my colleagues. It seems like the software industry is the same way. Is it really rapid-release?? SeaMonkey 1.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.0.9 - twelve releases over twenty months. SeaMonkey 1.1 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.1.19 - twenty two releases over forty three months. SeaMonkey 2.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey to SeaMonkey 2.0.14 - twenty two releases over thirty months. Should the question really be *What's the difference??* There are a lot of differences, but the primary one is that the new release system includes NOT just bug and security fixes, but NEW FEATURES. There is also an ongoing User Interface redesign that is taking place slowly since FF4. I can't see that just how they choose to number releases affects any aspect of either use, or utility, of a release. Getting new features, and other 'non-bug/security' fixes to the user-base as quickly as possible means the FF can remain competitive in a rather difficult market. I, for one, think the new system is fantastic, and makes the product more useful, and more 'current'. What numbers are applied, I will let others discuss because it doesn't matter to me. The point, which I apparently failed to make, is that SM updates have always happened fairly often, so I don't see what the problem with six weekly updates is?? Daniel, There should not be any problem with the weekly updates as long as the first in the series contains fully documented changes to how important user tools and option perform. Example: When upgrading from SM 2.0 to 2.1 all user tools and options that have been improved from the previous version need to be fully documented within the application Help Files. Major security fixes need to be fully documented where those fixes may change the behavior over the older version. When making a minor version change (2.0.1 to 2.0.2) or (2.2.1 to 2.2.2) for security patches those changes must not change any user tools or operations. If a security patch is required that will affect user options then a new version level needs to be created with full documentation. Full documentation does not mean disclosing the code base in question, but dose mean how the changes will affect user experience with the new upgrade. Failure to perform these simple tasks will drive more users back to MS Internet Explorer and Outlook. Conclusion: The number of security patches is very important to keep our applications secure from the nasty world of Hackers and Crackers trying to infect our computers. At the same time the new and improved updates/upgrades must document the changes and how they may affect user experience. I don't mind having one, two, or three security upgrades a week if those upgrades do not affect how I use SM, and if they may affect my use of SM how do the changes affect how I use SM. Michael G ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
Michael Gordon wrote: Daniel wrote: Ron Hunter wrote: On 8/29/2011 8:16 AM, Daniel wrote: John wrote: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. The web browser and email client are critically important to me, and I think the majority of users would agree. Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? Changes in program behavior should be fully documented in advance of an upgrade. Users who prefer the behavior of the old version should be given the option to retain it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The end user should not be forced to be the guinea pig whose feedback becomes the quality control for these programs. Please return to the former more careful release strategy. I worked as an electrical engineer for Motorola for many years. All too often, we had products being sold before they were designed and unrelenting pressure to push them out the door. There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over was the cynical opinion of many of my colleagues. It seems like the software industry is the same way. Is it really rapid-release?? SeaMonkey 1.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.0.9 - twelve releases over twenty months. SeaMonkey 1.1 alpha through to SeaMonkey 1.1.19 - twenty two releases over forty three months. SeaMonkey 2.0 alpha through to SeaMonkey to SeaMonkey 2.0.14 - twenty two releases over thirty months. Should the question really be *What's the difference??* There are a lot of differences, but the primary one is that the new release system includes NOT just bug and security fixes, but NEW FEATURES. There is also an ongoing User Interface redesign that is taking place slowly since FF4. I can't see that just how they choose to number releases affects any aspect of either use, or utility, of a release. Getting new features, and other 'non-bug/security' fixes to the user-base as quickly as possible means the FF can remain competitive in a rather difficult market. I, for one, think the new system is fantastic, and makes the product more useful, and more 'current'. What numbers are applied, I will let others discuss because it doesn't matter to me. The point, which I apparently failed to make, is that SM updates have always happened fairly often, so I don't see what the problem with six weekly updates is?? Daniel, There should not be any problem with the weekly updates as long as the first in the series contains fully documented changes to how important user tools and option perform. Example: When upgrading from SM 2.0 to 2.1 all user tools and options that have been improved from the previous version need to be fully documented within the application Help Files. Major security fixes need to be fully documented where those fixes may change the behavior over the older version. When making a minor version change (2.0.1 to 2.0.2) or (2.2.1 to 2.2.2) for security patches those changes must not change any user tools or operations. If a security patch is required that will affect user options then a new version level needs to be created with full documentation. Full documentation does not mean disclosing the code base in question, but dose mean how the changes will affect user experience with the new upgrade. Failure to perform these simple tasks will drive more users back to MS Internet Explorer and Outlook. Conclusion: The number of security patches is very important to keep our applications secure from the nasty world of Hackers and Crackers trying to infect our computers. At the same time the new and improved updates/upgrades must document the changes and how they may affect user experience. I don't mind having one, two, or three security upgrades a week if those upgrades do not affect how I use SM, and if they may affect my use of SM how do the changes affect how I use SM. Michael G Michael, back a bit I reported that I was having a problem so, after upgrading, when I clicked on the Browser Icon (I normally just start in Mail News), I was being taken to a SeaMonkey-Project page which advised of the problems/improvements made in the upgrade rather than my Home Group. This was a desired situation (by the developers) which, I think, could be switched off in prefs.js Has this function been changed?? -- Daniel ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
The next version of Firefox (version 7.0) is scheduled for 27th September 2011. Please make a note in your diary! Good luck. John wrote: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. snipped ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
On 19/08/11 11:54, David Wilkinson wrote: Philip Chee wrote: It is not true that none of those working with Mozilla cannot see the problems. Triple negative here. As written this says that it is not true that everybody working at Mozilla can see the problems. As evidenced by his second paragraph, Philip meant it is false that nobody working at Mozilla can see the problems. Neither he nor I are paid employees of Mozilla AFAIK, but we are both putting some work into Mozilla-family products (SeaMonkey and sometimes Gecko or Toolkit), and I can tell you that we are deeply concerned. I think that on several key points (version numbering one of them) SeaMonkey made wiser decisions than Firefox in the past, and I hope that it is going to go on that way, but I don't have an infallible crystal ball: I'll know what my future is when it becomes my present, and by the time I realize what it means, it'll already be my past. About the discoverability of version numbers, bug 678775 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=678775 has been mentioned (perhaps without the bug number) in this thread. I'm added the link so that anybody can go and see (but this is somewhat off-topic in the _SeaMonkey_ newsgroup since it is a Firefox bug and AFAIK Seamonkey isn't going that way). The bug has been RESOLVED INVALID a few hours ago, and I believe that that resolution (or maybe WONTFIX) is the right one, but I'm taking no bets on how long it will be before Asa Dotzler-Schmotzler (the guy with a big mouth and his foot in it: this phrase wasn't coined by me but I like it) or someone on his side in this controversy, REOPENs it. Best regards, Tony. -- hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict: 159. You get excited whenever discussing your hard drive. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
On 08/19/2011 03:12 PM, Tony Mechelynck wrote: ... About the discoverability of version numbers, bug 678775 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=678775 has been mentioned (perhaps without the bug number) in this thread. I'm added the link so that anybody can go and see (but this is somewhat off-topic in the _SeaMonkey_ newsgroup since it is a Firefox bug and AFAIK Seamonkey isn't going that way). The bug has been RESOLVED INVALID a few hours ago, and I believe that that resolution (or maybe WONTFIX) is the right one, but I'm taking no bets on how long it will be before Asa Dotzler-Schmotzler (the guy with a big mouth and his foot in it: this phrase wasn't coined by me but I like it) or someone on his side in this controversy, REOPENs it. ... Priceless... thanks Tony. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
On 8/17/2011 9:54 PM, Peter Boulding wrote: On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:33:59 -0700, Sailfish removecapssailf...@removecapsunforgettable.com wrote in hdwdnfio_41crthtnz2dnuvz_v-dn...@mozilla.org: [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? ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
On 8/18/2011 5:35 AM, Peter Boulding wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 04:25:31 -0500, Ron Hunterrphun...@charter.net wrote inxnudnaqn_4exr9htnz2dnuvz_rydn...@mozilla.org: On 8/17/2011 9:54 PM, Peter Boulding wrote: On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:33:59 -0700, Sailfish removecapssailf...@removecapsunforgettable.com wrote in hdwdnfio_41crthtnz2dnuvz_v-dn...@mozilla.org: [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 support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
On 8/18/2011 10:59 AM, Ryan P. wrote: On 8/18/2011 6:24 AM, Ron Hunter wrote: On 8/18/2011 5:35 AM, Peter Boulding wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 04:25:31 -0500, Ron Hunterrphun...@charter.net wrote inxnudnaqn_4exr9htnz2dnuvz_rydn...@mozilla.org: On 8/17/2011 9:54 PM, Peter Boulding wrote: On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:33:59 -0700, Sailfish removecapssailf...@removecapsunforgettable.com wrote in hdwdnfio_41crthtnz2dnuvz_v-dn...@mozilla.org: [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. I can just see the bug reports now... xxx is broken. It worked a few weeks ago. I had an old version that just updated itself to Latest Version, so I don't know what version I was running before. How much time would a developer have to waste trying to track THAT bug down? I think its idiocy not having version numbers in software. Of course, I think its idiocy to bump a version number a whole number just because you fixed a spelling error in a drop down menu, but at least its a version number... So, you think the difference between FF5 and FF6 is that trivial? Go here: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/6.0beta/releasenotes/buglist.html Spelling changes? Sure. but a couple of other minor fixes, wouldn't you say? Last I checked, they already had 740 or so listed changes between FF6 and FF7, which should move to the beta channel any minute now. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
Ryan P. wrote: On 8/17/2011 4:53 PM, Ran Garoo wrote: On 8/17/2011 14:26, John wrote: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. The web browser and email client are critically important to me, and I think the majority of users would agree. Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? Changes in program behavior should be fully documented in advance of an upgrade. Users who prefer the behavior of the old version should be given the option to retain it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The end user should not be forced to be the guinea pig whose feedback becomes the quality control for these programs. Please return to the former more careful release strategy. I worked as an electrical engineer for Motorola for many years. All too often, we had products being sold before they were designed and unrelenting pressure to push them out the door. There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over was the cynical opinion of many of my colleagues. It seems like the software industry is the same way. Ditto. Plus, the extension system is broken. Why in the world would an update done for mostly stylistic reasons break the functionality of one of the major features that distinguishes Firefox? Go with the latest upgrade and lose more extensions. I wish they would stop designing around the ideas of somebody who arbitralily decides that the world doen't need some function; i.e., the java console. Or designing sround someone's fervent (apparently) desire to emultate MicroSoft's horrible ribbon menus. Having worked with many different products conceived, designed and tested by engineers, I can tell you that the Mozilla team is exhibiting all the signs of not caring about how something works in the real world. They care about adding bells and whistles simply because they can, and they can brag about having 3 more bells than the other team of computer geeks has on their software. Nevermind that its making the end-user (generally NOT a computer geek) jump through more and more hoops to simply use the software. I'm not saying that I don't appreciate Firefox... Its just that change for the sake of change, as opposed to change to add functionality, is silly. Second. -- - Rufus ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
On 8/18/2011 1:07 PM, Rufus wrote: Ryan P. wrote: On 8/17/2011 4:53 PM, Ran Garoo wrote: On 8/17/2011 14:26, John wrote: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. The web browser and email client are critically important to me, and I think the majority of users would agree. Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? Changes in program behavior should be fully documented in advance of an upgrade. Users who prefer the behavior of the old version should be given the option to retain it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The end user should not be forced to be the guinea pig whose feedback becomes the quality control for these programs. Please return to the former more careful release strategy. I worked as an electrical engineer for Motorola for many years. All too often, we had products being sold before they were designed and unrelenting pressure to push them out the door. There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over was the cynical opinion of many of my colleagues. It seems like the software industry is the same way. Ditto. Plus, the extension system is broken. Why in the world would an update done for mostly stylistic reasons break the functionality of one of the major features that distinguishes Firefox? Go with the latest upgrade and lose more extensions. I wish they would stop designing around the ideas of somebody who arbitralily decides that the world doen't need some function; i.e., the java console. Or designing sround someone's fervent (apparently) desire to emultate MicroSoft's horrible ribbon menus. Having worked with many different products conceived, designed and tested by engineers, I can tell you that the Mozilla team is exhibiting all the signs of not caring about how something works in the real world. They care about adding bells and whistles simply because they can, and they can brag about having 3 more bells than the other team of computer geeks has on their software. Nevermind that its making the end-user (generally NOT a computer geek) jump through more and more hoops to simply use the software. I'm not saying that I don't appreciate Firefox... Its just that change for the sake of change, as opposed to change to add functionality, is silly. Second. http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/6.0beta/releasenotes/buglist.html Not change for the sake of change. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
Ron Hunter wrote: On 8/18/2011 1:07 PM, Rufus wrote: Ryan P. wrote: On 8/17/2011 4:53 PM, Ran Garoo wrote: On 8/17/2011 14:26, John wrote: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. The web browser and email client are critically important to me, and I think the majority of users would agree. Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? Changes in program behavior should be fully documented in advance of an upgrade. Users who prefer the behavior of the old version should be given the option to retain it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The end user should not be forced to be the guinea pig whose feedback becomes the quality control for these programs. Please return to the former more careful release strategy. I worked as an electrical engineer for Motorola for many years. All too often, we had products being sold before they were designed and unrelenting pressure to push them out the door. There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over was the cynical opinion of many of my colleagues. It seems like the software industry is the same way. Ditto. Plus, the extension system is broken. Why in the world would an update done for mostly stylistic reasons break the functionality of one of the major features that distinguishes Firefox? Go with the latest upgrade and lose more extensions. I wish they would stop designing around the ideas of somebody who arbitralily decides that the world doen't need some function; i.e., the java console. Or designing sround someone's fervent (apparently) desire to emultate MicroSoft's horrible ribbon menus. Having worked with many different products conceived, designed and tested by engineers, I can tell you that the Mozilla team is exhibiting all the signs of not caring about how something works in the real world. They care about adding bells and whistles simply because they can, and they can brag about having 3 more bells than the other team of computer geeks has on their software. Nevermind that its making the end-user (generally NOT a computer geek) jump through more and more hoops to simply use the software. I'm not saying that I don't appreciate Firefox... Its just that change for the sake of change, as opposed to change to add functionality, is silly. Second. http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/6.0beta/releasenotes/buglist.html Not change for the sake of change. Frankly the release schedule/timing doesn't bother me nearly as much (if at all) as the content/functionality/interface/quality issues going on with Seamonkey at present. -- - Rufus ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
My bloviated meandering follows what John graced us with on 8/17/2011 2:26 PM: I use SeaMonkey most of the time and Firefox occasionally. I try never to use IE. The web browser and email client are critically important to me, and I think the majority of users would agree. Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? Changes in program behavior should be fully documented in advance of an upgrade. Users who prefer the behavior of the old version should be given the option to retain it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The end user should not be forced to be the guinea pig whose feedback becomes the quality control for these programs. Please return to the former more careful release strategy. I worked as an electrical engineer for Motorola for many years. All too often, we had products being sold before they were designed and unrelenting pressure to push them out the door. There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over was the cynical opinion of many of my colleagues. It seems like the software industry is the same way. 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. mozilla.feedback is the best venue for this concern if you prefer to have it directed to the Mozilla Team, mozilla.general (which I've set a follow-up to) is best if you wish to discuss it in more depth with other Mozilla users. -- Sailfish - Netscape Champion Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/ Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/ ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
On 8/17/2011 4:26 PM, John wrote: Since Firefox and SeaMonkey embarked on their accelerated release schedule, we've seen several updates incorporating many significant behavioral changes which are causing grief to many users. Along with this we are being encouraged to upgrade promptly because that's the only way to get the latest security patches. Why the big hurry all of a sudden? I don't plan on upgrading until they reach 99.0 so the faster they get there the happier I'll be. :-) Bruce. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: A plea for a return to sanity in new version release scheduling
On 8/17/11 3:26 PM, John wrote: There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over That doesn't just apply to electronics and software, I suspect it's prevalent everywhere. I used to work as a aircraft mechanic, and worked at a shop where we repaired wrecks. I had to reassemble an aircraft after repairs due to a landing gear failure. The airplane had only 2.45 hours of flight time from the last belly landing. Even though the insurance company was willing to cover our higher priced bid for repairs, the owners decided that time was more important than quality. Needless to say, there was no pressure from the owners for getting the second repair out the door ASAP! :D -- Ken Mac OS X 10.6.8 Firefox 5.0 Thunderbird 5.0 LibreOffice 3.3.3 ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
