Mozilla 0.9 Branched, First 0.9.1 Checkin

Wednesday April 25th, 2001 branched today in preparation for the Mozilla 0.9 milestone, which they are targeting at people who are embedding Mozilla in their products as their first solid beta to use. Expect for 0.9 to be released sometime this week, or early next week.

Following the branching, the fix for bug 77002 was checked in to the 0.9.1 trunk, making page load time up to 17% faster in some cases. Verifications are currently going on on the first set of pre 0.9.1 builds with the fix, which are currently up on for Windows, Linux, and Mac. Expect the tree to open within the next few hours for open checkins to 0.9.1.

#1 Mmmmmm speedy

by ksosez

Wednesday April 25th, 2001 7:13 PM

Wow is it speedy...speed increase can be felt and seen...mmmmmmmm cant wait for bug 77540 to be checked in.....keep up the good work guys.

#2 Mmmmmm speedy

by ksosez

Wednesday April 25th, 2001 7:14 PM

Wow is it speedy...speed increase can be felt and seen...mmmmmmmm cant wait for bug 77540 to be checked in.....keep up the good work guys.

#3 17% faster, but will only load 20% of the page!

by jelwell

Wednesday April 25th, 2001 7:25 PM

No wonder it's faster, it's not always painting the whole page! see for info.

#8 Re: 17% faster, but will only load 20% of the page

by sdm

Wednesday April 25th, 2001 8:08 PM

WORKSFORME on win/me.

#9 Re: Re: 17% faster, but will only load 20% of the

by astrosmash

Wednesday April 25th, 2001 8:23 PM

NO WORKSFORME on winnt4 :( Pretty much 95% of the pages don\'t paint until you force it to (resize, etc.)

But I did use it to post this message :)

#14 Re: Re: Re: 17% faster, but will only load 20% of

by tny

Thursday April 26th, 2001 11:43 AM

WORKSFORME on Windows 98 FE 550MHz 256 MB LAN 2001042504. Windows folks should try the installer build (that\'s what I used). According to the bug, Linux users should blow away ~/.mozilla If that doesn\'t work, check the bug for more information.

#15 Re: Re: Re: Re: 17% faster, but will only load 20%

by gerbilpower

Thursday April 26th, 2001 11:45 AM

The problem is known, and behaves differently on differion OSs and on different web pages. So what's left now is for Hyatt and friends to investigate this bug and provide a fix.


#11 Re: 17% faster, but will only load 20% of the

by michaelg

Wednesday April 25th, 2001 10:07 PM

Too bad it's a Win32 specific problem. Looks like a good time to start using somthing else.

/me ducks for cover

#12 not so..

by archen

Thursday April 26th, 2001 12:52 AM

well we have Moz now so we don't have to switch right? Well until Windows users have to use that cartoon show called XP...

#4 Build Comments?

by abischof

Wednesday April 25th, 2001 7:45 PM

Well, v0.9 is certainly a Good Thing, but what's happened to the Build Comments (

#5 Re: Build Comments?

by abischof

Wednesday April 25th, 2001 7:46 PM

Damnable auto-link... That should read "what's happened to the build comments ( ?"

#6 Re: Re: Build Comments?

by abischof

Wednesday April 25th, 2001 7:47 PM

Okay, third try.. Maybe auto-link wiil cooperate this time. "to the build comments ?"

#7 Re: Build Comments?

by gerbilpower

Wednesday April 25th, 2001 7:50 PM

There was a thread on this on the news about Modern3/Autocomplete. Basically, since we're in the phase where 0.9 is being prepped to be released, Asa has been really busy with that. As the release of 0.9 nears, Asa should be available again to update the build comments.

Alex (the NewZilla guy )

#22 Re: Build Comments?

by asa

Friday April 27th, 2001 1:35 AM

I'm workin' on it, even got some comments up on the 26th :). I have 14 hours a day worth of other Mozilla responsibilities and this one was not up there in priority with getting a release out the door. It would help out a lot if others would test the builds and give me some feedback. It's no fun doing it all by myself :)


#25 Re: Re: Build Comments?

by thelem

Friday April 27th, 2001 2:40 PM

You say this, but when ever people suggest ways which would get more comments you refuse them (talkback on the comments, the script I wrote).

No offence intended, but I get the feeling you like using lack of comments as an excuse for not updating the comments. It a great service when its updated, there are just these occasional gaps.

#26 Re: Re: Re: Build Comments?

by asa

Sunday April 29th, 2001 4:24 PM

Um, when I build my own Mozilla news site I'll consider your suggestions about how to improve it. Right now I post comments on someone else's site (thanks chrisn and kerz) and since I don't think that peoples' comments "after the fact" would be that useful to my maintaining the buildbar section I'm not complaining to chrisn and kerz about the lack of talkback you're requesting.

See, it's not responses to my builbar comments that I care about. That's something you seem to care about. When I post about the lack of comments I'm talking about _before_ I post my build assessment, not after. After doesn't make my contribution any easier.

If you and enough other people want a daily talkback to replace my comments then I'll be happy to stop and you all can continue to lobby chrisn and kerz to add that feature.


#29 Re: Build Comments?

by thelem

Monday April 30th, 2001 9:55 AM

Don't say that because it isn't your site you don't want to ask for talkback on the buildbar. With my script all that was required was a link, and I'm sure a mozine talkback system wouldn't be much harder.

I don't think you would just get replies to your comments, especially with my script because of the way things are phrased and that it asks for the build id.

It only bothers my when I see you complaining about a lack of comments, or when you have not posted any comments for a while. And when you aren't willing to even try a feedback system other than irc.

#10 Mozilla 1.0 delayed until 3rd quarter

by Nemo_NX

Wednesday April 25th, 2001 9:31 PM

This is good news in that Netscape and the Mozilla folks are going to be patient and get this web broser done right. The bad news? We have to wait a little longer. :(

#17 Re: Mozilla 1.0 delayed until 3rd quarter

by AlexBishop

Thursday April 26th, 2001 1:52 PM

This has also been discussed elsewhere on MozillaZine. What surprises me is that we've had no 'official' announcement of this. The best we've had is a news clip on MozillaZine saying that the roadmap had been updated to reflect the crash landings. There was never any explicit mention of a 1.0 delay. Even ZDNet have had to pick up the story from a third party website.

Alex (not the NewZilla guy, but go there anyway - it's great )

#23 wtf is mozillaquest?

by Waldo

Friday April 27th, 2001 3:10 AM

and how did zdnet end up using them as a source rather than the site or!


#28 Re: wtf is mozillaquest?

by gerbilpower

Sunday April 29th, 2001 10:20 PM

Who really does mozillaquest anyway? I've only visited the site a few things, and every time the headlines I see there seem misleading, such as "Mozilla 0.9 Sneak Preview!," as if works under a curtain and only a select few get to use the builds.


#31 Re: Re: wtf is mozillaquest?

by AlexBishop

Monday April 30th, 2001 11:36 AM

Have you read their guide to installing Netscape 6? Paranoid just isn't extreme enough. Oh, and the fact that 0.9 branched about a week too late means that "Mozilla's March to 1.0 Slows to Snail's Pace". We may as well all go home then! And those navigation buttons. How ugly can you get? And why's it called MozillaQuest anyway? Half the articles are about Linux? And another thing...

Oh, did I get side-tracked? Sorry.

Alex (no relation to the NewZilla guy)

#32 Re: Re: Re: wtf is mozillaquest?

by AlexBishop

Monday April 30th, 2001 11:51 AM

I forget to mention. Most of the articles seem to be written by Michelangelo. Oh, sorry, Mike Angelo. And the article about Mozilla's development 'slowing down' has been syndicated on's BrowserWatch.

As for the 'sneak previews' - I suppose it's good that someone's putting details of what each forthcoming milestone will have in terms of features etc. The only other way to find out this information is to read Asa's excellent build comments, look at the occassional Feature Updates on MozillaZine, trawl through Bugzilla or read any articles written by the online computer press, such as ZDNet, who sometimes mention Mozilla. A UK-based Internet magazine called .net used to do a feature called Mozilla Monthly which kept track of Mozilla's development, but they stopped after Netscape 6 was released, which is a shame. I should really write to them and ask them to reinstate the feature.

I'm getting sidetracked again.

Alex (of the non-NewZilla variety)

#13 wanted--more realistic scheduling

by mozuser

Thursday April 26th, 2001 8:01 AM

Mozilla has come far, but I wish the developers could stick closer to the development schedule. Inevitably at each milestone, the developers don't get all the bugs fixed that they were planning to, and a bunch of bugs get moved to the next milestone, resulting in a lot of disappointed users. Why not flag bugs with a more realistic target milestone from the start? If you work through the bugs faster than you think, you can always readjust the schedule and dive into more bugs. Users will be happier than if a bug they were hoping would be fixed for milestone X gets kicked out to X + 1.

The other problem I have is with all the doublespeak that goes into announcing delays in development. In February it was announced that 0.8.1 was being added to preserve 0.9 as the beta branch point, and other milestones were "shifted" out five weeks. Now all the unfixed 0.9 bugs are being moved out to 0.9.1, and 0.9.1 is the target beta branch point (contrary to this posting, but according to the roadmap). Why isn't 0.9 called 0.8.2 instead, going by the same reasoning that went into the 0.8.1 milestone?

#16 Re: wanted--more realistic scheduling

by Nemo_NX

Thursday April 26th, 2001 12:17 PM

Because of the crash landing that happened after 0.81 came out. Meaning, a lot of features hopped into 0.90 milestone. Now the newly rewritten code needs a little bit of fixing and extra polish.

#18 Re: Re: wanted--more realistic scheduling

by tny

Thursday April 26th, 2001 2:02 PM

Yeah, but based on the performance improvements in 0.9.1 nightlies (I timed start up and page load; startup is only 1.5-2.5 s longer than IE on my machine - which is damned good), I think it was the right decision to push back the schedule. Moz 1.0 will be a far better browser than Netscape 6.0.

#19 Re: wanted--more realistic scheduling

by Aquasky

Thursday April 26th, 2001 3:55 PM

Its all numbers... what difference does it make.... 0.8.1 0.8.2 0.8.3 0.9.1 0.99.99. 00.000..19. .2.4..2..21.2.2. 5.2. 2.34.6 3.5 35.3 .3 3. oops but anyways, the linux kernel is at 2.4 now, and samba is at 2.2 , wine, well who knows about that, .. pico is going strong but vi rocks.. thanks.. have a nice day.

#20 Re: Re: wanted--more realistic scheduling

by mozuser

Thursday April 26th, 2001 4:22 PM

I don't care so much about the numbers, but when I hear that bug 3144X is supposed to be fixed by milestone 0.x, which is supposed to come out on Jan. 12, that gives some indication that someone's paying attention to it.

#21 Re: wanted--more realistic scheduling

by Aquasky

Thursday April 26th, 2001 5:45 PM

fair enough, what you've said seems reasonable enough... but cant we all just holds hands and sing the praises to the almighty mozilla... soon enough we'll hit 1.0 and the masses will rejoice.. patience , patience

#24 Re: Re: wanted--more realistic scheduling

by AlexBishop

Friday April 27th, 2001 11:25 AM

I'm hoping there was a bit of irony in that message. Mozilla's great and eveything, but the World won't suddenly become a wonderful place just because 1.0 is released.

Of course 1.0 (and Netscape 6.5) will be big news. I'm betting that it'll be the headline of CNET when it's released. But I don't know if the masses will rejoice because Mozilla has arrived to save them from the evil Internet Explorer. Hang on... maybe they will. ;-)


#27 Re: Re: Re: wanted--more realistic scheduling

by asa

Sunday April 29th, 2001 4:28 PM

"Of course 1.0 (and Netscape 6.5) will be big news. I'm betting that it'll be the headline of CNET when it's released."

When and where did this idea that Mozilla 1.0 and Netscape 6.5 releases were goiing to be anywhere close to eachother start. This is easily the 5th or 6th time in as many days that I've seen some post here, on irc or the newsgroups suggesting that Netscape 6.x was going to be based on Mozilla 1.0 or coming out at the same time. Was there some Netscape or announcement that I missed?


#30 Re: Re: Re: Re: wanted--more realistic scheduling

by AlexBishop

Monday April 30th, 2001 11:29 AM

It was just a guess really. It would seem reasonable to assume that with Mozilla 1.0 being the first build designed to be 'release quality' (I know it's pretty usable now, but 1.0 suggests the first release fit for public consumption), it would be logical for Netscape to create a 'release quality' version of Netscape 6 (rather than their current offering).

The comments in Bugzilla etc. seem to allude to the fact that a major new release of Netscape 6 is close and that it will likely be called Netscape 6.5 (of course, Netscape Marketing probably hasn't made the final decision). I just assumed that it would be based on Mozilla 1.0, since 1.0 is also due out soonish and should be a high quality release. I believe Netscape originally planned to base Netscape 6 (or Communicator 5 or whatever it was called back then) on Mozilla 1.0, but they got bored of waiting (this is not a criticism of the Mozilla project; it's a criticism of letting marketing departments run software companies).

You're right, though. I have no idea when Netscape 6.5 (or whatever it's called) will be released. It probably depends on when Netscape judge that Mozilla has progressed to the stage that they can use it as the centre of a quality browser. I think they'll be treading carefully, based on the complete misjudgement they made about Netscape 6. The IE6 release date (which I believe is currently set around the third quarter of this year) is also probably an important factor for Netscape. Can any Netscape engineers clarify the situation (without breaking any confidentiality agreements)?

Anyway, I'm sorry if I made a misguided assumption. I hope this clarifies the situation.


#33 Re: wanted--more realistic scheduling

by pohl

Monday April 30th, 2001 7:02 PM

There's a simple answer to your question, and that is that making realistic predictions is a very difficult task. It's probably better to err on the side of optimisim anyway, because morale does actually effect one's interest in solving problems. Morale aside, there are always unexpected things happening and a limited amount of programmer talent. As for the alleged doublespeak, that is usually adjustment for things discovered in the course of work. For example, if I discover that the bug I'm working on depends on some other bug that isn't comming in time for 0.9, I have no choice but to change expectations for my bug. There's really no doublespeak in that. And some bugs may just be plain hard to reproduce and/or fix -- and if there's no reason to delay branching for the embedded users, then the bug should be moved to 0.9.1. Again, no doublespeak in that. I'm confident that people are doing the best that can be done.