2003-12-21 Branch builds

  • Fixed in 12/21 (oops): Download progress resets to zero momentarily on download items when a new download begins
  • Fixed in 12/21 (oops): Downloads window displays "0%" in the title bar progress briefly after a download completes.
  • Continued branch-only regression (since 12/18?): 228986 - crash after installing two extensions without restart.
  • Continued regression: 228648 - Some WinXP users report crashes at startup.

Windows builds: No official Windows builds

Linux builds: Official Linux, Official Linux+xft+gtk2

7 Responses to “2003-12-21 Branch builds”

  1. Josť Jeria Says:

    How come there are not offcial builds? Wasnt it the point for us to test it…

  2. Andrew Keyser Says:

    I thought something was going to get confused, with all the branch and trunk :P

  3. vfwlkr Says:


    this one is getting more and more serious:

    initially i brushed it off, but take a look at:

    it would help getting votes if you add it here ;-)

  4. Jesse Ruderman Says:

    I agree that the “installer deletes stuff it shouldn’t” bug must be fixed before 0.8. But screaming for more votes is not the answer. It isn’t a regression, but rather a problem with the installer (which is new sice 0.7 but still a month old). I think people are just noticing it now because they’re being forced to use the installer.

  5. Jesse Ruderman Says:

    I guess I could put a “(Warning!)” next to each link to an installer build.

  6. Robin Says:

    That bug /needs/ to be fixed before I’ll recommend Firebird again. Well, installer version at least. Shame, cos I’ve got at least a couple of people who I’ve told to wait for 0.8 before they try Firebird. I really don’t understand why Ben has flagged this as not a blocker.

    I know that you shouldn’t vote about something that doesn’t immediately affect you but in this case it’s stopping me from recommending FB so I’ve voted for it.

  7. Josť Jeria Says:

    Ben flagged this before all the users reported that they lost entire folders with information. I cant understand why this cannot be re-evaluated…