On Aug 18, 8:59 am, "Ryan P." <rdeletepa...@wi.rr.com> 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 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.)" > > > 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...
Moreover, combining new feature releases with security patches is a fool's errand. And yeah, Google, I mean you. Damned Chimeric-Hydra that thing (Google, Chrome is just one of the "heads"). _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
