Roadmap Graphic Updated
Tuesday November 26th, 2002
I'm curious why the 1.0 branch is going to be so long lived. Are the 1.X branches that less stable, especially considering all the addtional fixes they'll have had since 1.0 branched?
#4 Re: Why is 1.0 so long lived?
Tuesday November 26th, 2002 10:38 AM
Because a lot of developpers of mozilla-based projects want to work on their project and not try to play catch up with the changes in XUL. They need something very stable. And 1.0 is exactly that. Of course, 1.1 and 1.2 have new things, improvements, that's why they have a higher number after all.
Concrete example: If you take the latest version (1.2b that is), you have 8 localizations (translations of Mozilla in other languages), vs. 19 for 1.0.1, there are less themes working on 1.2b than on 1.0.1 etc... That's just the tip of the iceberg.
So it's not that much about the stability of the program, but the stability of the code.
I hope this answers your question.
#10 Re: Why is 1.0 so long lived?
Tuesday November 26th, 2002 1:44 PM
Completely. I should have known that really. Thanks for taking the time =)
As true as that may be about the 1.2b vs the 1.0, I would hope that the 1.2 branch when it is released has all the features and functionality of the 1.0 branch PLUS any new 1.2 enhancements. If it doesn't there's something seriously wrong here. The only thing i can think of for keeping an old branch around is that if something radically changes between versions that introduces incompatable behavior between versions. If not, the next branch should take the place of the current branch, eliminating the need to constantly update the other versions if a fix is found....Are you to tell me that at 1.9 we'll have 9 branches + any 1.0.x branches that will need to be updated in the event something gets fixed for 1.9.1?? That's insane! When the next version comes out, it should make the previous one obselete and, therefore, not supported...make users keep their stuff up to date....need a bugfix? get the latest version, not a patched previous version.
1.1, 1.2, etc are not going to be maintained AFAIK. Notice how they don't appear on the road map? Perhaps your second "1.0" was supposed to be "1.1". I agree that it would be foolish to maintain support for 1.1 any longer. The Mozilla project doesn't seem to have maintained it at all since its release (hence no 1.1.1, though it would've been a cool version number). I'm excited about this GTK thing in 1.2. I haven't seen it yet and of course I'm away for Thanksgiving, so I don't know if I'll be able to until I get back.
I'd really like to know when 1.2 final is projected to be finished. Seems sorta silly to make projections for 1.5 when they are having such a long delay for 1.2. Not that there is a rush. :-) I respect quality code.
#3 Re: What happened to 1.2?
Tuesday November 26th, 2002 10:13 AM
If you look at the dependency tree you'll notice that there is really only 1 bug left to be fixed. <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…endencytree.cgi?id=174647>
So, very soon would be my guess.
#5 Re: Re: What happened to 1.2?
Tuesday November 26th, 2002 11:00 AM
Actually, there are two bugs left to be fixed; one is a security/privacy bug and so doesn't show up on the dependency tree. I seem to remember some suggestion that the bug that does show up was a non bug (or an OS bug) though.
#9 Re: Re: What happened to 1.2?
Tuesday November 26th, 2002 12:06 PM
Thanks for the link. Its much easier to follow than the other page I was looking at: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174647>
erm, according to me there's 4 bugs left to be squished on that page - 154228, 113593, 125877 & 154927.
What release will fix Mozilla's image-handling ? It becomes really slow when it has to handle a lot of images in a page.
When I first read it, I thought it said 1.4 alpha was due in March 2005. Did a double-take.
It used to be that I could be prompted to accept images from a specific site. Any idea how to get this support back again?