SM 2.0/2.1 vs FF 3.0/3.1?

I'm just wondering what the SM release plans are
with FF considering a "quick" follow-on to FF 3.0,
currently being refered to as FF 3.1.

Will SM 2.0 coincide with such a FF 3.1?
(~ DEC 2008 ...)

Or will SM 2.0 ship after FF 3.0,
followed by SM 2.1 after FF 3.1?

Thank you,
Eddie Maddox
0
Eddie
5/21/2008 3:18:14 PM
mozilla.dev.apps.seamonkey 1567 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

11 Replies
1260 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 49

Eddie-MacG3 wrote:
> I'm just wondering what the SM release plans are
> with FF considering a "quick" follow-on to FF 3.0,
> currently being refered to as FF 3.1.
> 
> Will SM 2.0 coincide with such a FF 3.1?
> (~ DEC 2008 ...)
> 
> Or will SM 2.0 ship after FF 3.0,
> followed by SM 2.1 after FF 3.1?
> 
> Thank you,
> Eddie Maddox

Last I heard on this we are basically postponing discussion on this 
aspect until after Thunderbird works out their "Where to ship from" 
discussion.

-- 
~Justin Wood (Callek)
0
Justin
5/21/2008 3:26:00 PM
Eddie-MacG3 wrote:

> Will SM 2.0 coincide with such a FF 3.1?
> (~ DEC 2008 ...)

Could be, from where we are now.

> Or will SM 2.0 ship after FF 3.0,
> followed by SM 2.1 after FF 3.1?

No way, we haven't even got a 2.0a1 yet !

0
Serge
5/21/2008 4:41:57 PM
Eddie-MacG3 wrote:
> I'm just wondering what the SM release plans are
> with FF considering a "quick" follow-on to FF 3.0,
> currently being refered to as FF 3.1.
>
> Will SM 2.0 coincide with such a FF 3.1?
> (~ DEC 2008 ...)

This might be the most probable case, but we still have to figure out 
lots of things around that, e.g. what way Thunderbird is going (as we're 
sharing lots of code with them) and what's to happen with the source 
code tree (FF 3.0 / Gecko 1.9.0.x use CVS while FF 3.1 / Gecko 1.9.1 use 
a set of split, mostly hg, repositories).

To make it short, we just don't know yet, but given we don't even have 
an alpha yet (I'm not proud of that), we'll probably go for the target 
that is stable but a bit farer in the future, i.e. Gecko 1.9.1.

Robert Kaiser
0
Robert
5/21/2008 8:34:17 PM
On May 21, 3:34 pm, Robert Kaiser:
> > Will SM 2.0 coincide with such a FF 3.1?
> > (~ DEC 2008 ...)
>
> This might be the most probable case, but ...
> Robert Kaiser

Seems reasonable to me.

Another point,
we finally have a stable, supported,
fairly current series now.
Another 6-8 months will give everyone a
nice breather before having to go
through all that .RC, .0, .1, .2, ... stuff
all over again, so soon.

For FF it might make sense to do that every year.
Not for SM, I don't think. At least, not until after
The Port (XUL, etc.) is all finished.

In 6-8 months, I think we will then be
more than happy to do all that again,
since the rewards then will be well worth it,
and worth the wait.

We will also skip over big oceans of grief
that FF/TB will have to endure getting all the
Gecko 1.9.0 bugs worked out the next 6-8 months.

I don't know about the greater SM userbase,
but I bet they'll all understand, and most will agree,
that, in this case, we are much better off
letting FF 3.0 go on ahead without us,
and SM 2.0 will rejoin them at the FF 3.1 juncture.

That's also about the same timeframe
Gecko 1.8.1 support extends through. Perfect timing!

Thank you,
Eddie Maddox
0
Eddie
5/22/2008 10:06:33 PM
Eddie-MacG3 wrote:
> I don't know about the greater SM userbase,
> but I bet they'll all understand, and most will agree,
> that, in this case, we are much better off
> letting FF 3.0 go on ahead without us,
> and SM 2.0 will rejoin them at the FF 3.1 juncture.

Well, not completely sure about that, as they have to stay with the 
sucky thing we internally call "xpfe" for a while longer and it really 
shows its age and its own share of problems.

Robert Kaiser
0
Robert
5/23/2008 12:54:34 AM
Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Eddie-MacG3 wrote:
>> I don't know about the greater SM userbase,
>> but I bet they'll all understand, and most will agree,
>> that, in this case, we are much better off
>> letting FF 3.0 go on ahead without us,
>> and SM 2.0 will rejoin them at the FF 3.1 juncture.
> 
> Well, not completely sure about that, as they have to stay with the 
> sucky thing we internally call "xpfe" for a while longer and it really 
> shows its age and its own share of problems.

We have a large scale deployment of SeaMonkey. As many others this is 
mainly due to ancient Mozilla Suite legacy. Large scale is of course 
subject to discussion, in our case it's between 1k and 2k users.

Anyway. We are happy to wait another half year if that's what's needed 
for a stable and modert SM to emerge. Users are mostly happy with things 
not changing that much, which was the reason for migrating to SM from 
MozSuite in the first place. We could have gone for Thunderbird or 
Outlook for that matter, and both would have covered the need for most 
of our users. Current stable SM does too, and provided the smallest 
change for end users.

The only really important piece missing from the SM development cycle is 
  end user information about actual release cycle and road map. We are 
happy to wait 6+ months as long as we can count on an ETA being close to 
actual delivery date. Deployments of any scale requires planning ahead, 
and that does not correspond well with a fast 2.0 and an equally fast 
2.1 followup with major changes.


Kind regards

c

-- 
Christian Haugan Toldnes
Staff Engineer
The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
0
Christian
5/23/2008 6:44:04 AM
> Well, not completely sure about that, as they have to stay with the 
> sucky thing we internally call "xpfe" for a while longer and it really 
> shows its age and its own share of problems.

Considering how solid SeaMonkey 1.0 and SeaMonkey 1.1 are, and how xpfe 
seems to be faster than toolkit for some unknown reason, I don't care 
one thing if developers think it's sucky because it's not the l33t toolkit.
0
Benoit
5/23/2008 5:12:57 PM
Benoit Renard wrote:
>> Well, not completely sure about that, as they have to stay with the
>> sucky thing we internally call "xpfe" for a while longer and it really
>> shows its age and its own share of problems.
>
> Considering how solid SeaMonkey 1.0 and SeaMonkey 1.1 are, and how xpfe
> seems to be faster than toolkit for some unknown reason, I don't care
> one thing if developers think it's sucky because it's not the l33t toolkit.

Looks like we have different definitions of "solid" and "fast" or just 
different enough environments.
A product that randomly kills profiles, making people (appear to) lose 
their data, a product that has major memory management problems, 
including fragmentation and leaks, a product that gives you no 
reasonable chance to get rid of extensions once you have installed them, 
such a product is all but "solid" in my eyes.

In any case, why developers think it's sucky or not doesn't depend on 
1337 or not, it depends on being well-maintained and the code being 
understandable and as clean as possible, providing a good range of 
functionality at the same time. From what I see, the new toolkit wins 
out in all of those criteria, even though it could even be cleaner.
For me as a project manager, the number one thing I care about is active 
maintenance, followed by functionality/usefulness, and xpfe loses by far 
in those as well.
Those are the reasons why SeaMonkey 1.x and xpfe needs to die - the 
sooner the better.

One other thing why I want to see some pre-release of 2.0 happening as 
soon as reasonably possible, by the way, is that I see and hear people 
running away from 1.x just because it has no reasonably extenssion 
management.

Robert Kaiser
0
Robert
5/24/2008 12:27:59 PM
> A product that randomly kills profiles

What.

> making people (appear to) lose their data

Doesn't Firefox have the same problem? You're talking about the locked 
profile, right?

> a product that has major memory management problems, including
> fragmentation and leaks

Yet every SeaMonkey convert reports lower memory usage by SeaMonkey than 
the stand-alone products.

> a product that gives you no reasonable chance to get rid of extensions
> once you have installed them

Aye, that is a problem for end-users.
0
Benoit
5/24/2008 1:58:09 PM
Benoit Renard wrote:
>> A product that randomly kills profiles
>
> What.
>
>> making people (appear to) lose their data
>
> Doesn't Firefox have the same problem? You're talking about the locked
> profile, right?

No, I'm talking lost profiles - there seems to be some possible 
connection with (OS) crashes and/or not cleanly closing SeaMonkey when 
shutting down the computer or so, but it's not 100% sure why this is 
happening. What's clear is that we have repeating reports of this 
problem, and they seem to increase with latest 1.1.x versions.

>> a product that has major memory management problems, including
>> fragmentation and leaks
>
> Yet every SeaMonkey convert reports lower memory usage by SeaMonkey than
> the stand-alone products.

And those converting the other way (there are enough) report the 
opposite. That said, I'm talking branch vs. trunk here, not SeaMonkey 
vs. Firefox/Thunderbird.

>> a product that gives you no reasonable chance to get rid of extensions
>> once you have installed them
>
> Aye, that is a problem for end-users.

Right. At least from what I see personally in support newsgroups 
(English and German), mozine forums, and support mails to council and me 
personally.

Robert Kaiser
0
Robert
5/24/2008 10:38:04 PM
Benoit Renard wrote:
>> making people (appear to) lose their data
>
> Doesn't Firefox have the same problem? You're talking about the locked 
> profile, right?

Most severe for me is the mail cache data loss that occurs when you try 
to open a subfolder twistie while offline 
(https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=191990#c9).  Easy to do 
and hard to recover from when travelling (impossible while offline, 
slow/expensive on a mobile connection).

To prevent this, I am forced to keep twisties open all the time, which 
means that mail accounts that need watching can scroll out ouf sight and 
mail gets overlooked.

Oliver Schoett
0
Oliver
7/1/2008 10:05:56 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

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...

[ANN] Release of Bugzilla 3.0.1, 3.1.1, 2.22.3, and 2.20.5
--Sig_nEH4Ypdt2vWEVOYyO6=XaoK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Today the Bugzilla project has four releases! 3.0.1 is the first bug-fix release for the 3.0 series. 3.0 was very stable, but 3.0.1 adds a lot of little polish fixes that greatly improve the experience of using Bugzilla. 3.1.1 is our first development release toward Bugzilla 3.2. It has a huge number of new features, but is EXTREMELY UNSTABLE. It has not been tested, and should not be used in a production environment. It may fail in critical ways, or destro...

Enigmail-1.0.1 for OS/2 TB-3.0.x and SM-2.0.x available at enigmail.mozdev.org
I'm glad to announce that after a while, where some smaller quirks had to be ironed out, enigmail-1.0.1 can be downloaded from enigmail.mozdev.org. Thanks to the developers for the upload to their site. Enigmail-1.0.1 works only with Thunderbird-3.0.x and Seamonkey-2.0.x. If you still use TB-2.0.0.x or SM-1.1.x you should stick to enigmail-0.95.7. In case of trouble please post to this list here. Have Fun, Walter ...

enigmail-1.0.1 for TB-3.0.x and enigmail-1.1.2 for TB-3.1.x available
Hi, enigmail-1.0.1 (TB-3.0.x) and enigmail-1.1.2 (TB-3.1.x) are available at http://enigmail.mozdev.org. Note for Seamonkey-2.0.x you can download and install enigmail-1.0.1. Have fun, Walter ...

Bug DNN 3.1.1 Upgrade from 2.1.2 -> 3.1.0 ->
Somewhere along the process, (I missed when) a portal upgrade created a problem with portal creation. The site is created fine, but the password for the admin is never correct. I have to use host to correct it. Anyone faced this ?Do you know the truth when you hear it? are you using the same hash keys in your web.config? this got me one time-DarrenNeese.com-DNN ROCKS!-DeveloperSchool.com Thanks, this helped me narrow it down and realize it was possibly the upgrade from DNN2 to DNN 3. Since there are no hash keys in DNN2 because it uses an encryption key, how did you solve it?Do you know ...

Automated cleanup tool to remove the .NET Framework 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5
"I have posted an updated version of the .NET Framework cleanup tool that now contains support for automatically cleaning up the .NET Framework 1.0, the .NET Framework 1.1, the .NET Framework 2.0, the ..NET Framework 3.0 and the .NET Framework 3.5. This tool automates the manual cleanup steps for the .NET Framework 2.0 that I posted a while ago. These steps have helped solve most of the known .NET Framework 2.0 beta uninstall issues that I know of. In addition, the tool can be useful to return your system to a known (relatively clean) state in case you run into any .NET Framew...

SeaMonkey 1.0.1 and Firefox 1.5, 2.0, 3.0 version can be said to be a same at code level
Dear, I am pursuing my research in the field of sotware maintainence at preventive level. i had published some of my research paper in ACM SIGSOFT SEN. As per my research i designed the metrics model for smelly classes with the help of firefox three versions and then i had validated or tested the metrics model with the one version of SeaMonkey. I got the review upon my research that SeaMonkey and Firefox are same at the code level. These cannot be treated as two different data set. But what i had read is they both only usage the same Gecko engine from your website. Some more from yo...

1)Version 2.0.0.1.3 License fee? 2)IE Autofill equivalent available in FF?
Name: Will Ozier Email: wozieratopaincdotnet Product: Firefox Summary: 1)Version 2.0.0.1.3 License fee? 2)IE Autofill equivalent available in FF? Comments: I have two issues: 1) About three weeks ago, on the recommendation of a friend, and because I was having problems with Internet Explorer (IE), I went online to order Firefox. Somehow, in the process, I was hooked into a website (either http:www.mysoftwareprovider.com or My XP Tools) that required a credit card number and which billed me for a "3 year membership for a total of 39 $ USD" and for "My XP Tool...

Differences between .net 1, .net 1.1, .net 2.0 and .net 3.0 #2
Hi, This seems to be a common question, but i havent got an answer yet:(Can, any one please explain me the differences between these versions.If you keep your feet firmly on the ground, you'll have trouble putting on your pants! There are too many differences for one email - - from 1.0 to 1.1 (not a whole lot of real change, other than fixes, at least compared to 1.1 to 2.0) With 2.0, there were many new declarative controls, with many new ideas added in With 3.0, it's a superset of 2.0 - instead of replacing the installation completely, it just 'added on' new functionality - I would...

D.O.S. with Groupwise Messenger 1.0.1, 1.0.2 and 1.0.3
I reported this in the Groupwise Mesenger forum to no avail. I'll try my luck here :-) If you run a 'snmpwalk' on a Netware server running Groupwise Messenger V1.0.1 to V1.0.3) with _MESSENGER_ SNMP enabled, it will abend the server. With version 1.0.2 and 1.0.3, if you disable the Messenger SNMP, server won't abend but will only report SNMP info for Netware (and Groupwise if loaded and SNMP enabled). Can be easily tested by running the win32 snmpwalk from http://www.bradford-sw.com/board/board.cgi?id=BSI_Tools&action=download&gul=13 like this : snmpwal...

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)....

kaffeine 1.0, amarok 2.3.1 and ktorrent 4.0.0 for openSUSE 11.3?
Does anyone knows if kaffeine 1.0, amarok 2.3.1 and ktorrent 4.0.0 will make it in time for openSUSE 11.3's release? -- derhundchen ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11.3 toolchain is already frozen, so no, they will not. -- "Лучше молчать и прослыть дураком, чем открыть рот и развеять все сомнения." Марк Твен. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Minton's Profile: http://forums.opensuse.org/member.php?userid=15228 View this thread: http://forums.opensuse.org/showthread.p...

[ANN] Release of Bugzilla 3.2.1, 3.0.7, 2.22.7, and 3.3.2
Today we have some major security improvements for Bugzilla in the form of four releases. We strongly recommend that all Bugzilla administrators read the Security Advisory for these releases, which is linked below in this email. Bugzilla 3.2.1 is our latest stable release. It contains various useful bug fixes in addition to major security improvements. Bugzilla 3.0.7 and Bugzilla 2.22.7 are security updates for their branches. Bugzilla 3.3.2 is an unstable development release. In addition to the security fixes that all the other releases contain, this release contains n...

unable to instal latest 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 and 3.0.3 upgrades due NO WIN32
Name: Miep Visser Email: miepdotvisserathotmaildotcom Product: Firefox Summary: unable to instal latest 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 and 3.0.3 upgrades due NO WIN32 Comments: What is going on here? We have the layesy VISTA OS, and never had this response before. Browser Details: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.0.04506) From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.org/ Note to readers: Hendrix gives no expectation of a response to this feedback but if you wish to provide one you must BCC (not CC) the sender for them t...

Web resources about - SM 2.0/2.1 vs FF 3.0/3.1? - mozilla.dev.apps.seamonkey

Resources last updated: 11/28/2015 7:01:31 PM