User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9b5pre) Gecko/2008030401 SeaMonkey/2.0a1pre Build Identifier: Thunderbird 3.* This is a tracking bug, in the hope that a "reasonable" percentage of general, popular, featured, etc. extensions will support Tb3 when it is released. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. I was surprised not to find an "Extension Compatibility" component for the "Thunderbird" product. See also: bug 420989 (Tb2) bug 364745 (Fx3) bug 353206 (Fx2)
10 years ago
Did you notice the first bits of activity in bug 364745, where someone filed it going on a year before Fx 3 was originally slated to ship, and so it was resolved invalid? There's neither need nor point to an extension compatibility tracking bug before the first alpha is even firmly scheduled, and if you or someone else decides to take on the work of checking on extensions and contacting their authors (so there's actually something to track) when we're close enough to a release to say "now's the time to get updated" rather than "now's the time when we'll change things under your feet for months and months to come" then the odds of finding this bug rather than forgetting it existed and filing a new one are fairly slim.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
Considering that Firefox and Thunderbird share a lot of code, I thought that Thunderbird 3 was stable enough, or close to it, to begin checking which extensions work for it, a job which, in my mind, didn't have to be done by one single all-powerful tracker. However, I had misgivings, so I asked on the mozilla.dev.planning newsgroup. Dan Mosedale assured me that, if I opened a tracking bug like this one, it would surely not be RESOLVED INVALID. Only afterwards did I open it.
As with the other bug, I wasn't intending to go quite so far as to provide assurance, but to offer my (in retrospect, incorrect) opinion. Since we've got a thread in the newsgroup; I'll continue discussion of the best way to deal with this strategy there.
(In reply to comment #3) > As with the other bug, I wasn't intending to go quite so far as to provide > assurance, but to offer my (in retrospect, incorrect) opinion. Since we've got > a thread in the newsgroup; I'll continue discussion of the best way to deal > with this strategy there. > I guess I didn't hear your "tone of voice" right, and also that I "jumped the gun" without waiting for several, possibly mutually contradicting opinions. "That'll teach me."
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.