Daniel wrote:
Philip Taylor wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Spot on, Chris, and I do my little bit of testing, *as part of the
community* , by running the Beta versions as they are released (still
using 2.21b2, as shown in my sig, below, whilst waiting for the Council
to release 2.22b1).
And yet you, and all the other beta testers, failed to identify this
problem before 2.21 went live. Which indicates not that you, and they,
are not providing a useful service, but instad simply confirms Philip
Chee's statement that there /is/ no formal regression-testing program,
and there never will be, as a result of which each and every new
version of Seamonkey is capable of being fundamentally flawed.
Philip, all I can do is use SM as I need to use it and if I ever find a
problem, I'll let the devs know what I was doing to produce the problem.
Obviously, it seems to me, your uses are more demanding or different to
mine that you are able to produce a problem. Maybe, if you were using
the SM Beta, you would have been able to more effectively contribute to
SM Development, instead of whining after the final release!
And Philip, please don't take this as me complaining about you!! Really
I am just trying to point out that SM is being produced by a group of
volunteers who have to work "nine to five" to pay the bills and then
spend some of their (spare) time doing what they can to improve SM.
The more there are using some of "their time doing what they can to
improve SM", the sooner it will be 99.99999999% perfect!
--
Daniel
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/21.0 SeaMonkey/2.18 Build identifier: 20130418192405
or
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/24.0 SeaMonkey/2.21 Build identifier: 20130827183508
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
