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
* Co...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
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)....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...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 22.214.171.124 and
126.96.36.199 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...Merging of 1.9.1 to 1.9.2 done
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.
...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...1.9.1 and 1.9.2 unit tests on minis
I have enabled unit tests on the minis for the Fedora and OSX machines
(only 32-bit plaforms).
Once I see enough activity I will be disabling them from running on the
builders side .
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,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Are...examples of l10n updates on 1.9.1, 1.9.2
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...SeaMonkey 1.0.9 and 1.1.2 he-IL
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.
the language packs should be used with their respective RTL t...SeaMonkey 1.0.9 and 1.1.2 in italian
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.
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/mozilla-italia/seamonkey-1.0.9.it-IT.win32.i...SeaMonkey 1.0.9 and 1.1.2 upcoming
I'd like to give you a notice of our upcoming SeaMonkey 1.0.9 and 1.1.2
Both are planned to go public in sync with the Firefox updates currently
scheduled for next week, see their schedule at
Our candidate builds for those releases are here:
From QA up till now, we believe that builds in those directories are
ready to go final unchanged, so you shou...SeaMonkey 1.1.2/1.0.9 soon?
MoCo will release Firefox 188.8.131.52/184.108.40.206 soon:
Are there any plans to have a SM 1.1.2/1.0.9 at the same time?
Adrian (Adrianer) Kalla schrieb:
> MoCo will release Firefox 220.127.116.11/18.104.22.168 soon:
> 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...Heads up, the next Firefox 3.6.x platform version is 22.214.171.124 instead of 126.96.36.199
It was suggested in a bug I mention this to the list...
Firefox 3.6.4 has a platform version of 188.8.131.52. The version number =
184.108.40.206 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 220.127.116.11. 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 18.104.22.168 they are now for 22.214.171.124 (...