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 SeaMonkey is based on Mozilla 2.0 so it contains the fix for that bug, and the add-on is obsolete. :-)
- DERoss asks
- How will rapid releases of new SeaMonkey versions affect this list? See http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/06/22/172229/No-Additional-Firefox-4-Security-Updates regarding the impact on extensions from making Firefox 5 the security update of Firefox 4.
- How will pending changes to Add-ons Manager affect this list? (My understanding is that maxVersion values with wild-cards (e.g., 2.*) will no longer be accepted.)
- 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)
- 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?