Comments for LegNeato!

Comment on Mozillians.org is already useful, can’t wait for more by Christian Legnitto

Christian Legnitto — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 22:08:03 +0000

I believe the plan is to eventually, yes.

Comment on Mozillians.org is already useful, can’t wait for more by abral

abral — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 21:13:27 +0000

Will BrowserID be used in Mozillians.org?

Comment on Mozillians.org is already useful, can’t wait for more by Chris Ilias

Chris Ilias — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 20:16:04 +0000

“When Boris defers to someone else, I get worried.” Great line.

Comment on Mozillians.org is already useful, can’t wait for more by David Boswell

David Boswell — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 17:28:07 +0000

Great story. Very glad to hear mozillians.org has been useful to you already

Comment on Why are there no Firefox 5.0.1 and 3.6.19 automatic updates for Windows and Linux? by Christian

Christian — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:01:17 +0000

Nope, that is standard stuff. The manual hackery was turning off certain updates after they were automatically generated. For Firefox 6 & Firefox 3.6.20 we’ll have to do manual hackery to support patch updates for all platforms

Comment on Why are there no Firefox 5.0.1 and 3.6.19 automatic updates for Windows and Linux? by Robert Kaiser

Robert Kaiser — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:44:44 +0000

“Our update automation only supports patching to the last update.” – I think we decided on a different conclusion of that, though – Mac (i.e. 5.0.1/3.6.19) users will get full updates while non-Mac users (5.0/3.6.18) will get partial updates, if I read my emails correctly.

Comment on Why are there no Firefox 5.0.1 and 3.6.19 automatic updates for Windows and Linux? by baillard

baillard — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:39:50 +0000

I agree this was a difficult decision, and it took me three reads of the article to figure out that 5.0.1 was built and released manually for all platforms, but has no changes for non-Mac platforms. Question about downside #4 above, was the “firefox-3.6.16-3.6.17.partial.mar” an example of ‘manual hackery’ that allowed Windows systems to update to 3.6.17 from both 3.6.15 and 3.6.16?

Comment on Important dates for the Firefox rapid release process by Christian

Christian — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:41:23 +0000

Hmmm, don’t know why the wordpress editor is being so lame. I’ll look through the HTML source and correct anything that looks wonky, thanks!

Comment on Important dates for the Firefox rapid release process by Christian

Christian — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:40:50 +0000

We’re trying to downplay the importance of version numbers. We also don’t know what will go into each release as only the features that get finished will be included. We don’t want people to think about Firefox 5 vs Firefox 6, we want the focus to be on “Firefox” and users to always be on the latest version.

Comment on Important dates for the Firefox rapid release process by Christian

Christian — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:39:40 +0000

I’ll check with the AMO guys to see what is going on.

Comment on Important dates for the Firefox rapid release process by Brannon

Brannon — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:02:24 +0000

Why is Mozilla now moving so quickly through the version numbers (e.g. Firefox 5 and Firefox 6)? Will there really be any noticeable differences to the average user between each version given the fact that there will be shorter time periods in between each version release?

Comment on Important dates for the Firefox rapid release process by Mike Ratcliffe

Mike Ratcliffe — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:14:23 +0000

“You only have until 2011-05-17 to test your add-on with Firefox 5 content in mozilla-aurora and mark your add-on as 5.0* compatible”

That is great, but when I try to change the compatibility of Acebug in AMO’s dropdown and save it the changes do not stick /

Comment on Important dates for the Firefox rapid release process by Neil Rashbrook

Neil Rashbrook — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:08:29 +0000

Thanks for fixing the markup in your previous post. Here is today’s Planet-confusing markup:

Comment on Come join the new Firefox release team at Mozilla! by Christian

Christian — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:18:49 +0000

Thanks, I’ll look into it

Comment on Come join the new Firefox release team at Mozilla! by Neil Rashbrook

Neil Rashbrook — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:51:59 +0000

It looks like you tried to rewrite the job links but your wysiwyg editor made a bad job(!) of it, and left behind the following HTML that confuses Planet:

http://hire.jobvite.com/CompanyJobs/Careers.aspx?c=qpX9Vfwa&cs=9Kt9Vfw1&page=Job%20Description&j=oSdDVfwn">;

http://hire.jobvite.com/CompanyJobs/Careers.aspx?c=qpX9Vfwa&cs=9Kt9Vfw1&page=Job%20Description&j=oVZFVfwe">;

Comment on mozilla-central to mozilla-aurora merge tomorrow, 2011-04-12 by Christian

Christian — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 02:48:17 +0000

Yeah, I don’t mean from a product perspective…more from a merge perspective. I should be clearer and will edit the post

Comment on mozilla-central to mozilla-aurora merge tomorrow, 2011-04-12 by Mike Beltzner

Mike Beltzner — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 02:38:41 +0000

Woot!

I’m still a little nervous about up-front declaring that things are “in” or “out” for a specific version, but that’s just me wanting to be totally clear about terminology.

Nothing’s in a release until it merges across to the release-repository, which is further along in the process and requires a go/no-go from the release drivers, correct?

Comment on Firefox 4 “softblocking” bugs no longer have automatic approval by Christian

Christian — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:18:23 +0000

Yes, the softblockers will be one of the first places we look for the .x bugs but we don’t want to move them all blindly. I will likely be doing a mass change, but it seems Bugzilla might foil that plan and I might need to write a quick script.

Comment on Firefox 4 “softblocking” bugs no longer have automatic approval by Christian

Christian — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:17:11 +0000

Not a dumb question at all! Yes, they are eligible to making it in the .x releases and some may even land in 4.0 proper. It’s really a narrowing of scope but we are still deciding on the bugs on a case-by-case basis. Of course, evey day goes by the bar gets higher and higher to what we’d take.

Comment on Firefox 4 “softblocking” bugs no longer have automatic approval by XtC4UaLL

XtC4UaLL — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:20:59 +0000

Do Softblockers qualify for Blocking +.x State?
Can this be done in a Mass Change or manual Triage after Branching happened?
If no, why?

Comment on Firefox 4 “softblocking” bugs no longer have automatic approval by J. McNair

J. McNair — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 03:56:08 +0000

Okay, I m going to ask what might be a dumb question.
Many of the soft blockers may still be fixed in 4.0.x maintenance releases, right?

I’m just hoping we won’t have to wait until Firefox 4.1 or 5 or anything.

Anyway, thanks for all the hard work you and hundreds of others put into my favorite web browser/application platform thing.

Comment on Firefox 4 “softblocking” bugs no longer have automatic approval by MauricioC

MauricioC — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 23:50:32 +0000

Congratulations on this important decision!

Comment on Blockers, softblockers, betas and you by Christian

Christian — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 23:56:44 +0000

We’re planning on moving to that model after we freeze for the final beta. Final softblockers will start needing explicit approval (and betaN hardblockers are deferred)

Comment on Blockers, softblockers, betas and you by Bill Gianopoulos

Bill Gianopoulos — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 21:21:43 +0000

As much as I hate such directives, I think we need a anything that is not a hardblocker for BetaN+ needs to have an explicit a= from pone person (perhaps you?). I think things are getting way out of hand now. Also I think no new bugs can be marked as Blocking BetaN+ without the same single person approving that as well. Otherwise this is just never going to be released. (Just my opinion, I could be wrong).

Comment on Updated Firefox 4 beta plan by meh

meh — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:35:14 +0000

I bet $0.02 that there’s going to be a beta 13.