From MozillaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

No Tooltip Timeout

Llev asked
Hi, I'd like to know if No Tooltip Timeout works, or maybe if it's not needed anymore (FF bug 395668 is fixed, but what about SM?).
InvisibleSmiley replied
The FF bug you cited was fixed in Core/Layout for Mozilla 1.9.2. SeaMonkey is based on Mozilla 2.0 so it contains the fix for that bug, and the add-on is obsolete. :-)

The Future

DERoss asks
For Firefox, maybe (and yet…) but what about SeaMonkey? Here 2.3.* to 2.6.* seem "sensible", while 2.6a1 (more "conservative" for trunk support) != 2.6.* OTOH, 2.* would we a little wild, and not really meaningful as long as we don't know when 3.x will happen, and which API changes might be expected before then. — Tonymec 17:06, 7 September 2011 (PDT)

Smooth Wheel

  • I've seen that Smooth Wheel is in the AMO group, but shouldn't it be marked as "Obsolete", now that you can set smooth scrolling via edit>preferences>appearance>content , just by checking the first box under the Favicon options?
  • Dictionary Switcher 0.9 [from xsidebar site] has max version 2.1.*. It still works with 2.2, despite being officially incompatible.

--Francesco 09:09, 22 June 2011 (PDT)

Hm, this page is still titled 2.1/AddonCompat though we're at 2.3.3 now. For 2.2 (and presumably later) that would mean "Needs compatibility override". See next section. — Tonymec 17:09, 7 September 2011 (PDT)

Update for New SeaMonkey Versions?

DERoss asks

SeaMonkey is now at version 2.2 and will soon be at version 2.3. Under the new regime of frequent, rapid releases, I don't think 2.1 is being maintained. Will this Wiki be updated to reflect current SeaMonkey versions?

-- 11 August 2011

hm, yes, maybe we should reorganize the page:
  • Merge "Needs Compatibility Override" with the rest according to AMO or 3rd-party (otherwise too much switching back & forth needed as addons get and lose "paperwork compatibility")
  • For add-ons which still work, but lack paperwork compatibility with, let's say, at least one obsolete minor version (I mean, add-ons whose maxVersion doesn't exceed 2.1.* now that the current release is 2.3.x) mention the latest add-on version and the corresponding advertised maxVersion: the idea is that these are in jeopardy re future compatibility (are they maintained or has the author gone AWOL?) — maybe we should discuss the criterion
  • For add-ons which have a "production" version at AMO and a "testing" version elsewhere, maybe mention both in the respective sections?
  • etc.
Tonymec 16:53, 7 September 2011 (PDT)