7/04/2005 05:50:00 PM - What is 1.8?
As Asa wrote, Mozilla Suite is not changing its name to Seamonkey. That will be a separate product that will not be supported by the Mozilla Foundation.
The last official release off the developing suite was Mozilla 1.8 Beta 1 (Released February 26, 2005).
So what is the difference between Seamonkey 1.0 and what would have been Mozilla 1.8? Bonsai, Tinderbox, CVS, Talkback, and Bugzilla that held Suite now hold Seamonkey.
Other than a change of the name, I'm not sure what is different.
By allowing the new product to retain the name Seamonkey, I find the mozilla.org resources to be even more confusing. Let me use the Seamonkey Tinderbox as an example. When it says Seamonkey, does it mean the new product or the stable 1.7.x branch of the application suite? Why is there a Blocking 1.8b3+ bugzilla flag?
Asa responded to my question with "Mozilla 1.8 refers to the Mozilla platform and Gecko user agent. Firefox 1.1 and Thunderbird 1.1 (and XUL Runner) will be based on the Mozilla core technologies 1.8 branch."
So we have Mozilla Core (Gecko 1.8), and built on that will be Firefox 1.1, Thunderbird 1.1, XUL Runner, Camino, and Seamonkey 1.0.
Got that?
I do. Sorta. Its easier to understand if you call the core Gecko 1.8 instead of Mozilla 1.8.
My understanding is that the Mozilla.org things are separated enough. This would mean that mozilla/mail (aka Thunderbird) does not rely on seamonkey/mailnews (aka MailNews). It does, so that's something I think they'll need to work on. I believe it is important to be able to draw the line around the core so that the code isn't mingled. You shouldn't have to rely on build-time flags to pull code out of someone else's directory. If its shared, then it should either be core or copied.
I was pointed to the Mozilla.org transition plan. Even after reading that I can't find where the involvement of the Mozilla Foundation ends and the Community begins.
So what's my point? I want to be sure that resources are being dedicated to Core and the official Mozilla.org products. Whose job is it to ensure that's how things happen? Since MoFo announced the end of Mozilla Suite 1.8, have the checkins decreased over there?
Update 1: I guess what concerns me is that the MoFo resources are being misdirected. Either that, or that there really is no difference between Mozilla Suite 1.8 and Seamonkey 1.0 in terms of development. How does this change really benefit Firefox and Thunderbird? Since MoFo resources are still being used, doesn't that mean that MoFo is paying for the servers for Seamonkey?
Update 2: I really have no idea what inspired this post. I have seen nothing from the Mozilla Foundation that indicates in any way that they're supporting Seamonkey. I guess I'm 1) confused slightly about the naming conventions and 2) dismayed that developers would rather just leave than work on Firefox.
As part of the switch, MoFo has stated that it will provide the SeaMonkey project with supporting infrastructure (CVS repository, bugzilla, tinderboxen), but the vast majority of people directing the project, developing code and providing QA are volunteers, many of whom also contribute to Core and the official Mozilla.org products.
I'd say that suite checkins have probably increased since the MoFo announcement, mostly because the engine was on, but no one was behind the wheel to coordinate and push development. Is this acceptable? Should we slow down?
I could be wrong, but back a year or so ago, all the talk was Mozilla 2.0 and GRE (XULRUNNER) so I'm assuming that is still the plan.
Update 1: I guess what concerns me is that the MoFo resources are being misdirected. Either that, or that there really is no difference between Mozilla Suite 1.8 and Seamonkey 1.0 in terms of development.
Why is a lack of difference in development a problem? The suite was doing fine when it came to development.
How does this change really benefit Firefox and Thunderbird? Since MoFo resources are still being used, doesn't that mean that MoFo is paying for the servers for Seamonkey?
I think the resources that were a problem were QA/testing to make sure stable releases could be delivered, and the rest of the release process. If you follow the Mozilla Foundation meeting minutes posted to the newsgroups, it seems like shipping something takes quite a lot of work for them. By switching that work over to the community, they can devote all of their resources to Firefox. No more "people" resources are required.
I would think resources like bandwidth are minimal incremental costs - particularly since everybody claims we have no users.
When it comes to developer resources, I don't know how much keeping SM alive hurts. For one thing, there's a good chance I would find something else to do with my time if they axed the suite. Plus, those of us who do work on the suite usually contribute stuff back to aviary/toolkit, even if it isn't our direct goal to do that.
