Talk:History of Mozilla Firefox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
To-do list for History of Mozilla Firefox: | edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|---|
|
||
Contents |
[edit] Delicious delicacies
Removed IRC quote. Reasons below. - Ekevu (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- Doesn't sound verifiable... IRC logs aren't authoritative.
- Not neutral. Apparently Connor was present to rebuff, and rebuff isn't there.
- Really, what was Ross' opinion on it? It only says Ross liked the quote, but doesn't even state clearly if he was favourable to it.
- "Inspiring to note over IRC?" This quote doesn't sound all that insightful.
[edit] Minefield
Apparently, there's confusion about the "Minefield" brand on nightly builds; so I'd like to set the record straight. There were many false reports of Firefox releases, when software vendors, such as softpedia.com, saw nightly or tinderbox builds with a new or different version number. The purpose of the "Minefield" brand name was to prevent people from confusing nightlies for releases. Here's the discussion. Here's the bug. As you can see, it's checked into both the trunk and 1.8.1 branch, which is what Firefox 2 will be built on. Minefield is NOT the codename for Firefox 3.
- You can also look at this link, http://www.beltzner.ca/mike/archives/2006/04/11/expect_an_earthshattering_kaboom.html. Here it talks about Minelfield being the codname. Behun 07:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Now read this. Chris_Ilias 03:29, 19 April 2006 (EST)
- That only proves my point. It is called Firefox 3 but the codename is Minefield. Like Firefox 1.5 was codnamed Deer Park, and Firefox 2 is codenamed Bon Echo. Therefore the name on the page uses both the name and the codename in a lower case. It also follows the previous cells on the table. Behun 17:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Proves your point? It says "'Minefield' isn't associated with any target deliverable." sigh Very well. If you aren't willing to educate yourself on Firefox, don't bother with this Wikipedia article. When Firefox 3 is given a codename, you will see. Chris_Ilias 17:30, 19 April 2006
- I have been working with WIkipedia a lot longer than you have, given that this was your first edit. Also, it does not deal with any specific release but the general Firefox 3 trunk which is being called Minefield. Behun 21:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- What does my experience on Wikipedia (of course, ignoring wiki.mozilla.org) have to do with my knowledge of Firefox development? Early next year, Firefox 3 is going to branch from the trunk. Chris_Ilias 22:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Fine you experience at wiki.mozilla shows some edits, but with over half of them dealing with your profile. Also, I a know a lot about Firefox for I have been using it since it was Phoenix and for the most part have always been downloading the nightly builds daily. When Firefox 3 branchs which will probably happen at the end of the year or early next year, the trunk will then change to a different codename while the branch will take the name Minefield. Behun 22:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- You missed the point. One's experience editing any wiki has nothing to do with one's knowledge of Firefox development. You wanna check the MozillaZine Knowledge Base now? :-D Because you seem unwilling to read the link in my first reply to you, I'll quote it:
- Fine you experience at wiki.mozilla shows some edits, but with over half of them dealing with your profile. Also, I a know a lot about Firefox for I have been using it since it was Phoenix and for the most part have always been downloading the nightly builds daily. When Firefox 3 branchs which will probably happen at the end of the year or early next year, the trunk will then change to a different codename while the branch will take the name Minefield. Behun 22:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- What does my experience on Wikipedia (of course, ignoring wiki.mozilla.org) have to do with my knowledge of Firefox development? Early next year, Firefox 3 is going to branch from the trunk. Chris_Ilias 22:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have been working with WIkipedia a lot longer than you have, given that this was your first edit. Also, it does not deal with any specific release but the general Firefox 3 trunk which is being called Minefield. Behun 21:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Proves your point? It says "'Minefield' isn't associated with any target deliverable." sigh Very well. If you aren't willing to educate yourself on Firefox, don't bother with this Wikipedia article. When Firefox 3 is given a codename, you will see. Chris_Ilias 17:30, 19 April 2006
- That only proves my point. It is called Firefox 3 but the codename is Minefield. Like Firefox 1.5 was codnamed Deer Park, and Firefox 2 is codenamed Bon Echo. Therefore the name on the page uses both the name and the codename in a lower case. It also follows the previous cells on the table. Behun 17:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Now read this. Chris_Ilias 03:29, 19 April 2006 (EST)
""Minefield" isn't associated with any target deliverable, but is the name which we use to refer to builds that come off the trunk. So, when the trunk is branched for Firefox 3, for example, we'd rename the builds on that branch to use the codename for Firefox 3 (whatever that ends up being). " Chris_Ilias 22:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Theoretically it could always change like "Bon Echo" used to be called "The Ocho" for the longest time. But unless they decide to change it, it is being refered to as Minefield. So for the time being, I feel it should be called Minefield for that when people look up Firefox at wikipedia, they would then understand what people are talking about when they use the word Minefield. Then if it does change, it can be immediately changed on Wikipedia. Behun 23:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you want people to understand what they are talking about, then tell them that Minefield is the brand name given to trunk builds regardless of version number. If you refer to Minefield as a codename for any specific version, people are not going to understand what they are talking about. Chris_Ilias 23:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is given to Firefox 3, when it is branched and a trunk is made for Firefox 4, then the name will change. Minefield will most likely not used over again (although Deer Park was used over again for awhile). Behun 23:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- The intent is to use it over again. (ie. keep the trunk branded Minefield) Why else to you think they chose the word "Minefield"? Chris_Ilias 23:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know, they were going to name 1.5 after a fictional ESPN network in Dodgeball but changed it before release. I generally, don't take names into to much consideration. Behun 23:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- You should. You obviously don't believe me; so why don't ask Mike yourself, in the mozilla.dev.apps.firefox newsgroup. Chris_Ilias 23:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- I am agreeing to disagree and when there is a disagreement, it should be removed and left blank. I understand your arguement but feel that Firefox 4's trunk will not be called Minefield due to confussion. Some may have stated that Minefield exists only for the trunk, but I would not be surprissed if they release a alpha version sometime within the next couple of month (as talked about a little on MozillaZine to bust testing) and then Minefield would be included under 3.0a1. Then because of the inclusion, it would stay up till 3.0 and because they they intend to release it about a 1/2 a year after Firefox 2 (although everything gets delayed). (by the way, this is the last time I will be looking at this page tonight due to a lot of work that I need to do.)Behun 00:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Is this wikipedia article intended to be a resource to your personal predictions? I hope not. What to name the first Fx3 alpha, is currently be discussed here. Chris_Ilias 00:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is not intended to be personal projections but the history of the article can be put in perspective. In the past, the codname of a project was put into the final release name as the tendative name. This is shown for the fact that is is not released yet and has been happening since the early releases with 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 has it is being shown now. Behun 21:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Is this wikipedia article intended to be a resource to your personal predictions? I hope not. What to name the first Fx3 alpha, is currently be discussed here. Chris_Ilias 00:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- I am agreeing to disagree and when there is a disagreement, it should be removed and left blank. I understand your arguement but feel that Firefox 4's trunk will not be called Minefield due to confussion. Some may have stated that Minefield exists only for the trunk, but I would not be surprissed if they release a alpha version sometime within the next couple of month (as talked about a little on MozillaZine to bust testing) and then Minefield would be included under 3.0a1. Then because of the inclusion, it would stay up till 3.0 and because they they intend to release it about a 1/2 a year after Firefox 2 (although everything gets delayed). (by the way, this is the last time I will be looking at this page tonight due to a lot of work that I need to do.)Behun 00:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- You should. You obviously don't believe me; so why don't ask Mike yourself, in the mozilla.dev.apps.firefox newsgroup. Chris_Ilias 23:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know, they were going to name 1.5 after a fictional ESPN network in Dodgeball but changed it before release. I generally, don't take names into to much consideration. Behun 23:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- The intent is to use it over again. (ie. keep the trunk branded Minefield) Why else to you think they chose the word "Minefield"? Chris_Ilias 23:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is given to Firefox 3, when it is branched and a trunk is made for Firefox 4, then the name will change. Minefield will most likely not used over again (although Deer Park was used over again for awhile). Behun 23:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you want people to understand what they are talking about, then tell them that Minefield is the brand name given to trunk builds regardless of version number. If you refer to Minefield as a codename for any specific version, people are not going to understand what they are talking about. Chris_Ilias 23:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Note about "Branding and visual identity"
I've made a slight change to the section about branding and visual identity, because the conditions for using the Firefox branding were a little bit misleading. About a year ago I e-mailed the Firefox people about using the official branding for my own build – basically, unmodified source code, but built using i486 bytecode and packaged Slackware-style, and got the following response from Gervase Markham at Mozilla [1]:
Martin Ultima wrote: > I am a Linux developer and have recently been maintaining my own system > called "Ultima Linux." One of the programs I wish to include is > Firefox. Before now, I've just been using a custom build I made a while > ago that doesn't have any of the official branding or anything (I hope > this isn't against your use policies, if it is I most humbly apologize), > but recently I decided to build it again with the official branding so > that it would be more prominent and to show that this was the "real > deal." (I haven't distributed this build yet, although I have been > using it on my own machines for now.) > > Anyway, would it be possible for me to get permission to distribute my > build? This looks fine. :-) We are currently reviewing how best to meet the needs of Linux distributions, so the way this works may change in future. However, in the mean time, please go ahead - your build is basically the same as ours. Gerv
I'll be more than happy to forward a copy of the original message to anyone who wants to see it, just leave a note on my talk page or send me an e-mail.
multima 17:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Problems in Firefox
I don't know why, but this page misrenders in Firefox 1.5.0.6, with the image overlapping the text. This is probably a bug in either Firefox or MediaWiki. --81.183.88.34 12:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TOC
The TOC has been removed from the top of the main article, and so:
- A header pointing to the main article has replaced the TOC here.
- The TOC has been changed to a lower priority FF community TOC, and reinserted in the main article
Widefox 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Original Phoenix Logo
I vaguely remember a white angel-like logo when I first started using Phoenix. I could be mistaken. Can anyone confirm this and find that logo if it exists?
