[3551] in Release_7.7_team
Re: Mozilla 1.0.1, 1.1, etc.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (t. belton)
Thu Oct 3 22:40:08 2002
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 22:40:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: "t. belton" <tbelton@MIT.EDU>
To: Robert A Basch <rbasch@MIT.EDU>
cc: Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU>, <release-team@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <200210032232.SAA31357@abulia.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33L.0210032235440.554-100000@iphigenia.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Yup. This is something I'm going to look into tomorrow. I suspect it was a
warning for people back in the 0.9x "anything could change at any moment"
releases. With 1.0 they actually have a user base and (hopefully) they
won't break any existing prefs wantonly. OTOH, as Bob points out, they may
be assuming users have a forward version change only and will not be
shifting back to 1.0 after embracing 1.1. We shall see.
P.S. to Bill: I don't know that asking Sun about 1.0.1 will do anything,
though feel free if you like. These releases are provided by Mozilla, not
Sun, and I have seen no indication (yet) that Sun is interested in
providing any Mozilla cuts of their own - especially given that they're
distributing Netscape instead.
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Robert A Basch wrote:
> > Going to 1.1 on both platforms seems reasonable. (It does mean leaving
> > the SGI more behind, but that shouldn't be a show-stopper.)
>
> As I mentioned to Todd offline, I recall seeing a warning from mozilla
> that sharing a profile between different versions can cause corruption.
> I don't know if this would apply to 1.0 vs. 1.1, but it is something
> that should be investigated before we commit to running different
> versions on different platforms. (If it turns out that this is not a
> problem, I agree that it makes sense to go with 1.1, leaving SGI behind
> if necessary).
>
> Bob
>
>
