MCBastos wrote:
Interviewed by CNN on 23/06/2011 18:32, Ray_Net told the world:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Ray_Net schrieb:
But it would be nice to have a longer life of a supported version ...
A lot of things would be nice. Do you sign up to the job of backporting
all those security patches? If so, we maybe can start talking about it.
Perhaps i have not explained correctly - The question is not for
backporting ... the question is just why do you change major versions so
often ?
"So often?" Seamonkey 1.x was essentially the same as Mozilla
Application Suite 1.x -- that is, we had four years (98-2002) of Mozilla
as a beta, plus four years (2002-2006) of Mozilla as a shipping product,
PLUS three years of Seamonkey 1.x. That's *seven* years (counting only
released products) with essentially the same product, making internal
improvements but no major changes.
Seamonkey 2 was released almost two years ago, and it was a major change
-- from the old framework to the new toolkit, for starters. Seamonkey
2.1 was launched now, and it's technically considered a MINOR version,
not a major version -- it essentially finished the transition job which
began with the 2.0 release. Even if it you want to call it a major
version (which it isn't), two years is a long, long time as browser
versions go.
I had named major version 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, etc....
mainly because per exemple migration from 1.x to 2.x cannot be don in
2.1 nor in 2.2 - So it's VERY important to migrate from 2.0 then 2.1 the
2.0 instead of migrating from 1.x to 2.x to 3.x
and the delay between 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2 is very short.
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
