SeaMonkey 2.1 - Gecko 1.9.2 or 1.9.3?

An increasing number of features are diverging between Gecko 1.9.2 and 
Gecko 1.9.3; this gives us a number of options, with pros and cons for 
each, but please don't consider this an exhaustive list.

   1. Stick with 1.9.2 for now, don't use 1.9.3 features at all
          * Pro: We know what features we have to port
          * Con: Lots of catching up on trunk after comm-central
            forks/after releasing 2.1
   2. Write code using feature detection for 1.9.3/backward
      compatibility for 1.9.2
          * Pro: More flexible than any other option
          * Con: Some 1.9.3 features can't easily be used compatibly
   3. Stick with 1.9.3 for now, people can try building against 1.9.2
      but some features might not work; drop 1.9.2 after comm-central
      forks (anyone desperately interested could potentially back out
      the 1.9.3 specific code on the branch)
          * Pro: Thunderbird needs to be 1.9.2-compatible anyway
          * Con: 1.9.2 not officially supported or unsupported
   4. Drop 1.9.2 now; don't accept code using feature detection or
      compatibility
          * Pro: Our best chance of catching up with Firefox 3.7
          * Con: No going back

-- 
Warning: May contain traces of nuts.
0
Neil
2/15/2010 10:06:30 AM
mozilla.dev.apps.seamonkey 1536 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

8 Replies
776 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 0

Neil wrote:
> An increasing number of features are diverging between Gecko 1.9.2 and
> Gecko 1.9.3; this gives us a number of options, with pros and cons for
> each, but please don't consider this an exhaustive list.
>
> 1. Stick with 1.9.2 for now, don't use 1.9.3 features at all
> * Pro: We know what features we have to port
> * Con: Lots of catching up on trunk after comm-central
> forks/after releasing 2.1
Also: If we release 2.1 on top if 1.9.2, we'll probably continue to lag 
significantly behind Firefox in delivering Gecko features.

> 2. Write code using feature detection for 1.9.3/backward
> compatibility for 1.9.2
> * Pro: More flexible than any other option
> * Con: Some 1.9.3 features can't easily be used compatibly
Also: A lot more work, a lot more complicated code due to ifdefs, i.e. 
we progress slower and are more prone to make errors in how we ifdef 
(apart from needing ifdefs in a number of chrome files, which we usually 
want to avoid for developer convenience).

> 3. Stick with 1.9.3 for now, people can try building against 1.9.2
> but some features might not work; drop 1.9.2 after comm-central
> forks (anyone desperately interested could potentially back out
> the 1.9.3 specific code on the branch)
> * Pro: Thunderbird needs to be 1.9.2-compatible anyway
> * Con: 1.9.2 not officially supported or unsupported
Also: Either go for a lot of ifdefs and run into the same problems as 
solution 2, or leave it unsure as what to check in or not, esp. if a 
patch only works with one of 1.9.2 or 1.9.3 but not both.

> 4. Drop 1.9.2 now; don't accept code using feature detection or
> compatibility
> * Pro: Our best chance of catching up with Firefox 3.7
Also: Avoid work and complexity increases that come with solutions 2 and 
3; ability to get patches into Core/Platform as needed (may be necessary 
for Composer work, for example).
> * Con: No going back
Also: Dependency on a not-yet-defined Gecko release schedule for 1.9.3.


I personally think we should go and drop 1.9.2 support for suite/ right 
away. For the parts we share with Thunderbird, we need to keep 
compatibility with both 1.9.2 and 1.9.3 in any case until comm-1.9.2 
branches.

Robert Kaiser
0
Robert
2/15/2010 1:46:02 PM
Robert Kaiser wrote on 15. Feb 2010:

> Also: Dependency on a not-yet-defined Gecko release schedule for 1.9.3.

Looking at the current Firefox schedule for 3.7 and the effort behind 
the
Lorentz release, I seriously doubt that you can meet your goal of
releasing 2.1 in June. However, TB 3.1 will be ready then, so maybe
sticking with 1.9.2 is really the better option...

Simon

-- 
Thunderbird/Calendar Localisation (L10n) Coordinator
Thunderbird l10n blog:       http://thunderbird-l10n.blogspot.com
Calendar website maintainer: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/calendar
Calendar developer blog:     http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/calendar
0
Simon
2/15/2010 3:43:00 PM
Neil skriver:
> An increasing number of features are diverging between Gecko 1.9.2 and 
> Gecko 1.9.3; this gives us a number of options, with pros and cons for 
> each, but please don't consider this an exhaustive list.
>
>   1. Stick with 1.9.2 for now, don't use 1.9.3 features at all
>          * Pro: We know what features we have to port
>          * Con: Lots of catching up on trunk after comm-central
>            forks/after releasing 2.1
>   2. Write code using feature detection for 1.9.3/backward
>      compatibility for 1.9.2
>          * Pro: More flexible than any other option
>          * Con: Some 1.9.3 features can't easily be used compatibly
>   3. Stick with 1.9.3 for now, people can try building against 1.9.2
>      but some features might not work; drop 1.9.2 after comm-central
>      forks (anyone desperately interested could potentially back out
>      the 1.9.3 specific code on the branch)
>          * Pro: Thunderbird needs to be 1.9.2-compatible anyway
>          * Con: 1.9.2 not officially supported or unsupported
>   4. Drop 1.9.2 now; don't accept code using feature detection or
>      compatibility
>          * Pro: Our best chance of catching up with Firefox 3.7
>          * Con: No going back
>
Personally I would prefer 4 or 3, mainly for the reason that I don't 
think we have resources to keep track of both 1.9.2 and 1.9.3. The worst 
choice would imo be 1, since that would probably mean that we'll always 
be one branch after (once we've catched up with 1.9.3, there's already a 
1.9.4 branch).

4 and 3 could otoh mean that the next major release will slip - it's 
hard to predict the future condition of 1.9.3 at this stage.

/Stefan
0
Stefan
2/15/2010 7:26:42 PM
Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Neil wrote:
>> 4. Drop 1.9.2 now; don't accept code using feature detection or
>> compatibility
>> * Pro: Our best chance of catching up with Firefox 3.7
> Also: Avoid work and complexity increases that come with solutions 2 and
> 3; ability to get patches into Core/Platform as needed (may be necessary
> for Composer work, for example).

That's also what I see as a big advantage. First we're low on resources
already to develop the features and changes for 2.1 at all, maintaining
compatibility with multiple branches surely won't make it any easier.
Second 1.9.2 is complete and locked down much in the same way that 1.9.1
is and we haven't even started real 2.1 developing yet.

>> * Con: No going back
> Also: Dependency on a not-yet-defined Gecko release schedule for 1.9.3.

True, but we can hardly influence/change that. Personally I don't care
too much when exactly 2.1 is released (granted, I'm not participating in
release management), only that it's not completely up in the air.

> I personally think we should go and drop 1.9.2 support for suite/ right
> away.

+1

(Just my 2c)

Greetings,

Jens

-- 
Jens Hatlak <http://jens.hatlak.de/>
SeaMonkey Trunk Tracker <http://smtt.blogspot.com/>
0
Jens
2/15/2010 7:31:01 PM
Simon Paquet wrote:
> Robert Kaiser wrote on 15. Feb 2010:
>
>> Also: Dependency on a not-yet-defined Gecko release schedule for 1.9.3.
>
> Looking at the current Firefox schedule for 3.7 and the effort behind the
> Lorentz release, I seriously doubt that you can meet your goal of
> releasing 2.1 in June.

Did I say that was the target? All I said is June is the earliest 
possible time we could potentially go for a release, I didn't say it was 
the actual target.

Having until fall/autumn for a release probably fits us better with what 
we are planning, esp. given the progress we made between 2.0 and right now.

Robert Kaiser
0
Robert
2/15/2010 8:42:38 PM
Neil wrote:

My concerns are:
m-1.9.3 is a moving/unknown target, even more with their recent 
"NoMore192NotYet193" idea,
c-1.9.2 is not created yet (and I've seen no date, though hopefully not 
too long away now).

>   1. Stick with 1.9.2 for now, don't use 1.9.3 features at all
>          * Pro: We know what features we have to port
>          * Con: Lots of catching up on trunk after comm-central
>            forks/after releasing 2.1
>   2. Write code using feature detection for 1.9.3/backward
>      compatibility for 1.9.2
>          * Pro: More flexible than any other option
>          * Con: Some 1.9.3 features can't easily be used compatibly

I am more in favor of option 2 (or 1 if need be).
Note that I'm not as much interested in new features than to release on 
a newer stable Gecko: like what Thunderbird 3.1 is doing.

>   3. Stick with 1.9.3 for now, people can try building against 1.9.2
>      but some features might not work; drop 1.9.2 after comm-central
>      forks (anyone desperately interested could potentially back out
>      the 1.9.3 specific code on the branch)
>          * Pro: Thunderbird needs to be 1.9.2-compatible anyway
>          * Con: 1.9.2 not officially supported or unsupported

I don't really understand this option nor its pro at least.

>   4. Drop 1.9.2 now; don't accept code using feature detection or
>      compatibility

I read this option has now been chosen, but just for the record...
I hope we won't be blocked too much until c-c branches to c-1.9.2.

0
Serge
2/17/2010 3:43:46 AM
On 2/16/2010 10:43 PM, Serge Gautherie wrote:
> Neil wrote:
>
> My concerns are:
> m-1.9.3 is a moving/unknown target, even more with their recent
> "NoMore192NotYet193" idea,

What is this "NoMore..." idea; source/cite?

>> 4. Drop 1.9.2 now; don't accept code using feature detection or
>> compatibility
>
> I read this option has now been chosen, but just for the record...
> I hope we won't be blocked too much until c-c branches to c-1.9.2.

This actually frees us from being blocked by a c-c branch. suite/ itself 
won't need any ifdefs etc. (even suite/ specific build-config). Whereas 
we still need that stuff in rest of the tree. Which we have been using 
there quite effectively.

-- 
~Justin Wood (Callek)
0
Justin
2/17/2010 5:06:34 AM
Serge Gautherie wrote:

> Neil wrote:
>
>> 3. Stick with 1.9.3 for now, people can try building against 1.9.2
>>    but some features might not work; drop 1.9.2 after comm-central
>>    forks (anyone desperately interested could potentially back out
>>    the 1.9.3 specific code on the branch)
>>          * Pro: Thunderbird needs to be 1.9.2-compatible anyway
>>          * Con: 1.9.2 not officially supported or unsupported
>
> I don't really understand this option nor its pro at least.

What the option means is that where we can we write code that works with 
1.9.2 but when 1.9.3 has a new or updated feature then we support that 
and when you build against 1.9.2 that feature just won't work properly. 
The pro is that Thunderbird needs to work on 1.9.2 so that it's only the 
suite part of the tree that won't be 100% compatible with 1.9.2 builds.

-- 
Warning: May contain traces of nuts.
0
Neil
2/17/2010 9:18:17 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Dropping 1.9.2, Going 1.9.3 for SeaMonkey 2.1
[re-post of http://home.kairo.at/blog/2010-02/dropping_1_9_2_going_1_9_3_for_seamonkey here in the groups/lists] I blogged on SeaMonkey 2.1 planning earlier in http://home.kairo.at/blog/2010-01/seamonkey_2_1_planning and also about the fact that we have been unsure if we should go 1.9.2 or 1.9.3 in terms of the platform there. I sent mails to the SeaMonkey Council and a few quite active developers in the last days, and asked for opinions on dropping support for 1.9.2 and going for firmly basing SeaMonkey 2.1 on Mozilla platform 1.9.3 instead. Nobody was really against th...

SeaMonkey 1.1.18 vs SeaMonkey 2.1 (if/when 2.1 is released)
I will clearly state that I am not a computer whiz...thus, I have a number of concerns regarding SeaMonkey 2.0 installation on my system. I have been reading the many SeaMonkey 2.0 messages on this newsgroup with some concern about my ability to fix the problems that could occur with the installation of 2.0. It seems that the move from 1.1.18 to 2.0 is not happening without a number of glitches along the way. Thus, in light of what I have read, I am wondering if it would wise for me to wait for a future release of SeaMonkey before upgrading my system...I suppose I am hoping tha...

From 2.1.2 to 3.1 or 2.1.2 to 3.0.13 to 3.1
I'm checking back in after being away for a couple of months and I missed the 3.1 release. I can't seem to find any info on what's new in 3.1 and also what the upgrade path should be. So, is the recommended path for upgrading from v 2.1.2 to go directly to 3.1 or do I need to go to 3.0.13 first? Are there any big issues in 3.1 that make it a "gotta have it" version?I did a couple of 2.1.2 to 3.0.12 upgrades but haven't upgraded to or tested 3.1 yet. I have one 2.1.2 site that is commercial and I need it to be down as little time as possible. It also has a lot of third party modules...

SeaMonkey 1.0.9 and 1.1.2 he-IL
hi, now that i have a job, i have very little time left for the l10n work. so these came out a little later than they should have. 1.1.2 ~~~~~ win32: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/hebmoz/seamonkey-1.1.2.he-IL.win32.installer.exe language pack: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/hebmoz/seamonkey-1.1.2.he-IL.langpack.xpi 1.0.9 ~~~~~ win32: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/hebmoz/seamonkey-1.0.9.he-IL.win32.installer.exe language pack: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/hebmoz/seamonkey-1.0.9.he-IL.langpack.xpi the language packs should be used with their respective RTL themes, released earlier. -- Tsahi Asher Mozilla Hebrew L10n team http://mozilla.org.il Tsahi Asher wrote: > hi, > now that i have a job, i have very little time left for the l10n work. > so these came out a little later than they should have. > > 1.1.2 > ~~~~~ > win32: > http://downloads.sourceforge.net/hebmoz/seamonkey-1.1.2.he-IL.win32.installer.exe > > > language pack: > http://downloads.sourceforge.net/hebmoz/seamonkey-1.1.2.he-IL.langpack.xpi > > 1.0.9 > ~~~~~ > win32: > http://downloads.sourceforge.net/hebmoz/seamonkey-1.0.9.he-IL.win32.installer.exe > > > language pack: > http://downloads.sourceforge.net/hebmoz/seamonkey-1.0.9.he-IL.langpack.xpi > > the language packs should be used with their respective RTL themes, > released earlier. > > -- > Tsahi A...

SeaMonkey 1.0.9 and 1.1.2 in italian
Hi everyone, since kairo said we can start making builds based on the latest candidates, here there are the italian ones. If there'll be problem with the candidates, i'll make them again. 1.1.2: Installer: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/mozilla-italia/seamonkey-1.1.2.it-IT.win32.installer.exe Langpack: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/mozilla-italia/seamonkey-1.1.2.it-IT.langpack.xpi Zip: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/mozilla-italia/seamonkey-1.1.2.it-IT.win32.zip 1.0.9: Installer: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/mozilla-italia/seamonkey-1.0.9.it-IT.win32.i...

SeaMonkey 1.1.2/1.0.9 soon?
MoCo will release Firefox 2.0.0.3/1.5.0.11 soon: http://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2007/03/04/firefox-2003-and-2004/ Are there any plans to have a SM 1.1.2/1.0.9 at the same time? -- Adrian Kalla Adrian (Adrianer) Kalla schrieb: > MoCo will release Firefox 2.0.0.3/1.5.0.11 soon: > http://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2007/03/04/firefox-2003-and-2004/ > > Are there any plans to have a SM 1.1.2/1.0.9 at the same time? Not yet. We are looking closely at what patches will be included there, but I currently see no immediate reason why we need t...

SeaMonkey 1.0.9 and 1.1.2 upcoming
Hi localizers, I'd like to give you a notice of our upcoming SeaMonkey 1.0.9 and 1.1.2 releases. Both are planned to go public in sync with the Firefox updates currently scheduled for next week, see their schedule at http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox:1.5.0.12-2.0.0.4 Our candidate builds for those releases are here: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/seamonkey/nightly/candidates-1.0.9/ http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/seamonkey/nightly/candidates-1.1.2/ From QA up till now, we believe that builds in those directories are ready to go final unchanged, so you shou...

SeaMonkey 1.0.9 and 1.1.2 in Brazilian Portuguese
Hi all, for the first time we've completed the job and we're releasing the first pt-BR version. The language packs and builds are here: http://seamonkeybr.mozilla.org.br/downloads/1.0.9/ http://seamonkeybr.mozilla.org.br/downloads/1.1.2/ and the langpacks are alternatively here: http://l10n.mozilla.org/~asrail/langpacks/ Asrail schrieb: > for the first time we've completed the job and we're releasing the first > pt-BR version. \o/ Always nice to see new L10n version appear :) > The language packs and builds are here: > http://s...

Thoughs on 1.9, 1.9.1, and 2
One of the common discussions that seems to come up often is what happens when 1.9 is done: do we go full-bore on 2? Do we plan for an interim release? Do we have a way of fixing small polish/regression bugs that we weren't able to get to 1.9 before the next major release? The main thing I'll assert here is that I think it is vitally important that the entire engineering team commits fully to work that will benefit whatever initial release "Mozilla 2" becomes: being able to make API-breaking changes, architectural improvements, potentially doing some of the large ...

Important App Update changes on the 1.9.1 and 1.9.2 branches
The value for the %BUILD_TARGET% parameter of the app.update.url preference is changing for Mac OS X Universal builds on the Mozilla 1.9.1 and 1.9.2 stable branches and should land for 1.9.2.12 and 1.9.1.15 releases unless an unforeseen issue comes up. Previously the value was always Darwin_Universal-gcc3 which doesn't distinguish which architecture the application is running on. The value will be Darwin_ppc-gcc3-u-ppc-i386 for Universal builds using the PPC architecture and Darwin_x86-gcc3-u-ppc-i386 for Universal builds using the i386 architecture. This is necessary to d...

selecting ? selecting of 1., 2. , 3., 4., 5., 6. is slow (1-3 second) then selecting of 7.,8.,9. go on is so fast (0.1 second or more fast).. how can i get fast for selecting of 1., 2. , 3., 4., 5., 6
hello friends selecting of 1., 2. , 3., 4.(sometime even 5., 6.) is slow (1-3 second) then selecting of 7.,8.,9.(sometimes 5., 6.,) go on is so fast (0.1 second or more fast).. how can i get fast for selecting of 1., 2. , 3., 4., 5., 6. is slow ?? recordcount is almost 1.050.000.. i do selecting 1.2.3. go on same page with treeview1.. treeview1 in masterpage.master.. gridview1 and datasource1 are in pagelist.aspx (it connets datasource1)..productnumber is primarykey for index.. kategori, kategori1 and kategori2, price, datemin are index from keys/index in table1 (right clicking menu)....

SeaMonkey 1.1.2 and 1.0.9 es-ES binaries and XPIs
Hi, We've got ready binaries and updated XPIs for both SeaMonkey 1.1.2 and 1.0.9: SeaMonkey 1.1.2 --------------- * Win32 (11525242 bytes, MD5: 14cf01788adb2f8b9b6979d77397b45f) http://descargas.proyectonave.es/productos/seamonkey/1.1/win32/seamonkey-1.1.2.es-ES.win32.installer.exe * Linux (15332421 bytes, MD5: c0a4926f2f3c10ee448bffdf743304f2) http://descargas.proyectonave.es/productos/seamonkey/1.1/linux/seamonkey-1.1.2.es-ES.linux-i686.installer.tar.gz * Langpack (745765 bytes, MD5: e13ac911179b048a3ff57ececc038b89) http://descargas.proyectonave.es/productos/seamonke...

Merging of 1.9.1 to 1.9.2 done
Hi all, I just finished merging a whole ton of locales from 1.9.1 via l10n-central to 1.9.2. I only touched those locales that didn't work on central nor 1.9.2 outside of 1.9.1. That is, if there were commits on central, I usually didn't merge that over. If you think that you can benefit from getting 1.9.1 content over, get in touch with me or someone else from the l10n-drivers team and we'll try to help you with more attention to detail. In particular, we'd need to know what of central to keep, and what of 1.9.1 to use. HTH Axel ...

Some bugs: SeaMonkey 1.1.9 #2
Sites get displayed in long lines. It still happens with Seamonkey 1.1.9 and used to be only on ebay now also happens on CNN with 1.1.9 What is the reason as this bug seemingly is not fixed. Here is a screenshot "http://mmri.us/issues/seamonkey/Seamonkey_cnn.png" admin@mmri.us wrote: > Sites get displayed in long lines. What do you mean by "long lines"?? Your screen shot looks o.k. to me! > It still happens with Seamonkey 1.1.9 and used to be only on ebay now > also happens on CNN with 1.1.9 > What is the reason as this bug seemingl...

1.9.1 and 1.9.2 unit tests on minis
Hi, I have enabled unit tests on the minis for the Fedora and OSX machines (only 32-bit plaforms)[1]. Once I see enough activity I will be disabling them from running on the builders side [2]. As we improve our infrastructure we will enable more and more branches and disabling more and more of them from the builders side and therefore reduce the load on that side. Let me know if you have any questions, Armen [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573480 [2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=557918 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Are...

examples of l10n updates on 1.9.1, 1.9.2
Hi there, following up on the discussion on the delivery call, here's a list of changes that I think we should take as minor updates. They're a bit more content-ish on 1.9.2 thanks to lorentz strings. I hope the links make it allright, there should be one per line, 8 for 3.5 and 12 for 3.6. A bit on reading those diffs: It only offers rich content for things it knows about. I.e., not for dictionaries or README.txt. For dictionaries, that's a feature because those diffs are huge quite often. README.txt wasn't important enough so far for me to hook up revisi...

Same profile in Seamonkey 2.4.1 and Seamonkey 2.6.1 ?
Hi, I will switch a computer from windows to linux and from Seamonkey 2.6.1 to Seamonkey 2.4.1 (I don't know why Ubuntu only have 2.6.1 on Precise alpha release). I think there no big differences between these two releases that will bring bug into profile. Am I false? On my computer I directly use Seamonkey from Mozilla, on that computer I don't want to have work, so I only keep Ubuntu repositories. -- Sorry for possible mistakes in English! http://pasdenom.info/ St�phane Gr�goire wrote: > Hi, > > I will switch a computer from windows to linux and...

Heads up, the next Firefox 3.6.x platform version is 1.9.2.6 instead of 1.9.2.5
It was suggested in a bug I mention this to the list... Firefox 3.6.4 has a platform version of 1.9.2.4. The version number = 1.9.2.5 is currently being used by Fennec. We=92ll be taking fixes above = and beyond that version, so the next platform version Firefox will use = will be named 1.9.2.6. We will keep the version numbers coherent by = naming it Firefox 3.6.6 (essentially skipping over 3.6.5). I will be moving the blocking flags and status flags as appropriate, so = if you see activity in bugs don=92t worry. Also, If you have approvals = for 1.9.2.5 they are now for 1.9.2.6 (...

Xulrunner 1.9.1.7 vs Xulrunner 1.9.2
I must say, after having a few good months playing with xulrunner 1.9.2, that it is in many ways less stable than 1.9.1.7 which is a shame. I've tried pretty much everything to stabilise the platform, primarily by optimising my code, but it is just pointless. I am switching back to 1.9.1.7. Is there any reason why Xulrunner 1.9.2 is so crashy? On 6/3/10 1:28 PM, <i>bebo</i> wrote: > I must say, after having a few good months playing with xulrunner > 1.9.2, that it is in many ways less stable than 1.9.1.7 which is a > shame. I've tried pretty much everyt...

Restricting the 1.9.2 tree leading up to 1.9.1 freezes?
The 1.9.1 branch will be freezing in a few days for FF3.1 Beta 3. This will be the first freeze since branching 1.9.1 from trunk, and is also (afaik) the first freeze where we've had two development trees (1.9.1, 1.9.2) in addition to a normal public release branch (1.9.0). Seeing as there is still a significant volume of work happening on 1.9.1 -- all of which must land on 1.9.2 first -- would it make sense to restrict checkins on 1.9.2 in the days leading up to the freeze? The risk is that if the 1.9.2 tree is in a bad state, we're effectively blocked from landing o...

SeaMonkey 1.1.1 and 1.0.8 he-IL #2
Hebrew SeaMonkey 1.1.1 and 1.0.8 win32 installer and langpack are now available. 1.1.1 win32 installer: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/hebmoz/seamonkey-1.1.1.he-IL.win32.installer.exe?use_mirror=osdn 1.1.1 langpack: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/hebmoz/seamonkey-1.1.1.he-IL.langpack.xpi?use_mirror=osdn 1.0.8 win32 installer: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/hebmoz/seamonkey-1.0.8.he-IL.win32.installer.exe?use_mirror=osdn 1.0.8 langpack: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/hebmoz/seamonkey-1.0.8.he-IL.langpack.xpi?use_mirror=osdn the language packs should be used with the...

How to upgrade from 2.1.1 to 2.1.2?
I have 2.1.1 wokring fine and I have spent a lot of time making it just right but I want to make sure I have the latest & greatest so I am trying to get 2.1.2 to work so I can upgrade. When I try to set-up 2.1.2 I get a few errors such as: Could Not Load Skin: ~/Portals/_default/Skins/_default/admin.ascx Error: C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.40607\Temporary ASP.NET Files\dnn212\295dc47c\1861dacc\3z6nxty1.0.vb(159): error BC30560: 'admin_ascx' is ambiguous in the namespace 'ASP'. Is there a simple way to upgrade from 2.1.1 to 2.1.2? RDD Iff you have not made any cha...

Bug 378409
Bug 378409 - Update ChatZilla version from 0.9.75.1 to 0.9.78.1 for SM 1.1.2. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=378409 has been Released into the Wild, Wild World Wide Web (...WWWWW. 378409.Bug.Bugzilla.Mozilla.Org/Print :). Thank you, Eddie Maddox Eddie-MacG3 schrieb: > Bug 378409 - Update ChatZilla version from 0.9.75.1 to 0.9.78.1 for SM > 1.1.2. > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=378409 > has been Released into the Wild, Wild World Wide Web (...WWWWW. > 378409.Bug.Bugzilla.Mozilla.Org/Print :). Sorry, this won't be done. No new ...

SeaMonkey 1.1.9 sv-SE ready #2
Here are the Swedish SeaMonkey 1.1.9 (sv-SE) files: <http://program.makt.org/archives/seamonkey/cross-platform/seamonkey-1.1.9.sv-SE.langpack.xpi> <http://program.makt.org/archives/seamonkey/mac/seamonkey-1.1.9.sv-SE.mac.dmg> <http://program.makt.org/archives/seamonkey/win/seamonkey-1.1.9.sv-SE.win32.installer.exe> <http://program.makt.org/archives/seamonkey/win/seamonkey-1.1.9.sv-SE.win32.zip> MLP staff: Please upload these to ftp.mozilla.org. Thank you. Cheers /Lars P M ...

Firefox 9.0.1
Mozilla released Firefox 9.0 and 9.0.1 within a day of each other. Will there be a SeaMonkey 2.6.1 forthcoming as a result? Firefox, as of this hour, has not yet updated their Release Notes page to reflect 9.0.1. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 111222-0, 12/22/2011 Tested on: 12/22/2011 9:37:11 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software. http://www.avast.com Edward wrote: > Mozilla released Firefox 9.0 and 9.0.1 within a day of each other. Will > there be a SeaMonkey 2.6.1 forthcoming as a result? > > Firef...

Web resources about - SeaMonkey 2.1 - Gecko 1.9.2 or 1.9.3? - mozilla.dev.apps.seamonkey

The Hawaiian Seamonkey
Diving, eating, gardening, loving the Big Island of Hawaii

The SeaMonkey® Project
The SeaMonkey project is a community effort to develop the SeaMonkeyall-in-one internet application suite (see below).Such a software suite was ...

SeaMonkey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
cross-platform Internet suite . It is the continuation of the former Mozilla Application Suite , based on the same source code. Core Mozilla ...

Review: SeaMonkey 1.1.8 for the Mac
SeaMonkey 1.1.8, the Mozilla Foundation's all-in-one Internet application, combines browsing, e-mail, HTML editing, and IRC chat.

SeaMonkey 2.3 Beta 1 arrives for testing
Based on the same Gecko browser engine as Firefox 6, SeaMonkey 2.3 Beta 1 has been released for testing. It offers improvements to WebGL that ...

SeaMonkey Offers Browser, E-Mail, and Chat
... resuscitated a group of Internet tools built by Netscapewhose spin-off, Mozilla, brought out the popular Firefox Web browser. Renamed SeaMonkey ...

SeaMonkey, Mozilla's all-in-one Internet suite, releases new beta
The SeaMonkey Project has released SeaMonkey 2.1 Beta 3 , a version that makes a lot of new functionality available to a wide audience for the ...

SeaMonkey review
Browse the web, work with mail, chat in IRC and edit HTML

SeaMonkey 2.33
... advanced e-mail, newsgroup and feed client, IRC chat, and HTML editing made simple, all your Internet needs in one application. The SeaMonkey ...

Seamonkey 1.1 Released
stuuf writes "Version 1.1 of the Seamonkey Internet Application Suite is now available, with quite a few improvements over the 1.0 series. Some ...

Resources last updated: 2/22/2016 12:06:35 AM