Tree Closes For 0.9.8

Wednesday January 16th, 2002 has closed the tree to approved checkins only, starting as of 12am Wednesday, and will do so until 0.9.8 has branched. 0.9.8 will have a variety of new items including new natively drawn widgets on WindowsXP, Mac OS X, and GTK, when you are in the classic skin (We will have more on this later, including screenshots); the addressbook was rewritten, and now supports printing, a new "Get Map" button allowing you to query for a map based on a card address, and other stability fixes; Windows MAPI support; and a huge amount of performance and stability work.

Many believe this is one of the last milestones prior to 1.0, and that will actually have 1.0 following 0.9.9. 0.9.8 should branch sometime next week, with a release two Mondays from now. We'll keep you updated on both the branching and the release.

#111 Re: voluntary-contribution model

by sab39

Tuesday January 22nd, 2002 10:18 AM

You are replying to this message

I think you are over-stating two different things here.

First, the degree to which this "went against documented Mozilla architectural decisions". The documented decision was to use XUL and an extended form of CSS to create widgets; we still do that. The CSS we used already had mozilla-specific extensions such as display:-moz-box and -moz-border-radius. The only change was to support a new CSS property that caused a specific new rendering behavior. It's probably true to say that code to rip out XUL and CSS and use native widgets *instead* would indeed have been rejected (probably even if it came from hyatt, for that matter).

But this code doesn't go against anything that came before - it's just the logical extension of it. There have been bugs to do this for ages: see <> opened in May 2000, and the subsequent discussion which indicated that the eventual goal was something very similar to what we ended up with. And Hyatt wasn't involved in that bug at all. The only reason it didn't happen sooner is that nobody ever worked on that bug.

The second thing that I think you are over-stating is the extent to which contributions would be rejected by if they were written. I only know of one such instance, and the reason for rejection was that the patch wasn't generalized enough; it was decided (reasonably enough) that a major feature should be done in an elegant and clean way, rather than hacked in. If the submitted code was elegant and clean like this code is, I feel perfectly confident in my position that it would have been accepted in an instant. The only advantage Hyatt has in this area is knowing the code inside out, so he could produce the patch much more easily than anyone else. That doesn't mean he's the only person from whom code would be accepted.