Comments on: 2004-05-16 Trunk builds http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/2004/05/17/2004-05-16-trunk-builds/ Developments in nightly builds of Mozilla Firefox Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:20:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: fishbert http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/2004/05/17/2004-05-16-trunk-builds/#comment-936 fishbert Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/?p=304#comment-936 Oh yay, we finally get mention of Bug 239722 here..... after it gets fixed. I suppose better late than never, but still... Oh yay, we finally get mention of Bug 239722 here….. after it gets fixed.
I suppose better late than never, but still…

]]> By: Jean-Marc Gillet http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/2004/05/17/2004-05-16-trunk-builds/#comment-937 Jean-Marc Gillet Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/?p=304#comment-937 Something rather rare : a code enhancement (the "bug" 233441 that introduced the true bug 242856) is backed out in order no to deter too many testers. 1.0 is near and Firefox cannot miss it. Bug 242856 is (was ?) unfortunately difficult to reproduce at will for many of us. Something rather rare : a code enhancement (the “bug” 233441 that introduced the true bug 242856) is backed out in order no to deter too many testers. 1.0 is near and Firefox cannot miss it. Bug 242856 is (was ?) unfortunately difficult to reproduce at will for many of us.

]]> By: Jeff Walden http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/2004/05/17/2004-05-16-trunk-builds/#comment-938 Jeff Walden Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/?p=304#comment-938 Bug 242856 was introduced after the 1.7 branch occurred. Firefox 0.9/1.0 are based off this branch, roughly, tho much of the Firefox development is occurring on trunk. Thus, this bug would not have affected Firefox 0.9 or 1.0. Isn't it a good thing Firefox 0.9 and 1.0 are based off a stable branch (particularly because it's an ueber-stable branch because Seamonkey made it for long-lasting stability)? Recently the Firefox 0.9/1.0 branch was opened (AVIARY_1_0_20040515_BRANCH on Bonsai). The work on trunk for the extension/themes manager was backported, and a few fixes have also entered the branch. In a week or so there will be a tinderbox set up for it, and you can always use Bonsai to query and discover what's been fixed. Once Ben gives the okay on the extension/themes/manager, we should start seeing super-stable branch builds whose day-to-day changes consist solely of bugfixes any time. These builds should be very safe to use, unlike the current trunk (I've wanted to test but haven't been willing to subject myself to the problems since 20040424[!]). Bug 242856 was introduced after the 1.7 branch occurred. Firefox 0.9/1.0 are based off this branch, roughly, tho much of the Firefox development is occurring on trunk. Thus, this bug would not have affected Firefox 0.9 or 1.0. Isn’t it a good thing Firefox 0.9 and 1.0 are based off a stable branch (particularly because it’s an ueber-stable branch because Seamonkey made it for long-lasting stability)?

Recently the Firefox 0.9/1.0 branch was opened (AVIARY_1_0_20040515_BRANCH on Bonsai). The work on trunk for the extension/themes manager was backported, and a few fixes have also entered the branch. In a week or so there will be a tinderbox set up for it, and you can always use Bonsai to query and discover what’s been fixed. Once Ben gives the okay on the extension/themes/manager, we should start seeing super-stable branch builds whose day-to-day changes consist solely of bugfixes any time. These builds should be very safe to use, unlike the current trunk (I’ve wanted to test but haven’t been willing to subject myself to the problems since 20040424[!]).

]]>