Thunderbird Bugs - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Thunderbird Bugs - Mozilla ; Before adding new features, how about addressing discrepancies? In particular, when will the following bugs be fixed? Some of these are actually regressions since they were not problems with MailNews in Netscape 4. -- David E. Ross . Anyone who ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Thunderbird Bugs

  1. Thunderbird Bugs

    Before adding new features, how about addressing discrepancies? In
    particular, when will the following bugs be fixed? Some of these are
    actually regressions since they were not problems with MailNews in
    Netscape 4.















    --

    David E. Ross
    .

    Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
    bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation. 1997

  2. Re: Thunderbird Bugs

    On 8/12/2007 10:33 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
    > Before adding new features, how about addressing discrepancies? In
    > particular, when will the following bugs be fixed? Some of these are
    > actually regressions since they were not problems with MailNews in
    > Netscape 4.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >


    I forgot . While
    this is a RFE (request for enhancement), it actually is a regression
    since the requested capability existed (and worked well) in Netscape 4.

    --

    David E. Ross
    .

    Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
    bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation. 1997

  3. Re: Thunderbird Bugs

    David E. Ross wrote:
    > On 8/12/2007 10:33 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
    >> Before adding new features, how about addressing discrepancies? In
    >> particular, when will the following bugs be fixed? Some of these are
    >> actually regressions since they were not problems with MailNews in
    >> Netscape 4.
    >>
    >>


    S Spitzer declares this bug existed in 4x, and wont be fixed until some
    future date

    >>
    >>


    This CAN be considered a regressions since it didn't occur in 1.5 (and
    perhaps earlier 2.0 versions?). Marked as minor ans Scott McGregor has
    taken it
    >>
    >>


    Not assigned to anyone in particular, been around a long time.
    >>
    >>


    Been around since at least Moz 1.7 and TB 0.5

    >>
    >>


    why would you want a default news account?
    assigned to Scott in any case

    >>
    >>


    Another one that has been there for as quite a while
    I find it doesnt occur as often with later versions (or I may have
    become innurred to it?) Scot has this one too.
    >>
    >>


    Scott has even commented on this one. Cosmetic and resolvable by a
    workaound. Tho not perfect, its not a major irritant.
    >>

    >
    > I forgot . While
    > this is a RFE (request for enhancement), it actually is a regression
    > since the requested capability existed (and worked well) in Netscape 4.
    >


    Mozilla, or Thunderbird/Firefox/SeaMonkey are NOT derivatives of Netscape 4!

    NO bugs can be considered 'regressions' simply because they didnt appear
    in Netscape 4. Thats like claiming all bugs in Vista are regressions
    because Windows 1.1 didnt have them - technically and realistically a
    fallacy.

    Forget Netscape 4x as a base for bugs and recognizing regressions.
    Moz/TB/FF/SM are simply not derivatives of the product, nor do they owe
    much (in pure coding issues) aside from general layout. It would be like
    claiming Safari is a derivative of Camino

  4. Re: Thunderbird Bugs

    Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    -------------------------snip-------------------------

    > Forget Netscape 4x as a base for bugs and recognizing regressions.
    > Moz/TB/FF/SM are simply not derivatives of the product, nor do they owe
    > much (in pure coding issues) aside from general layout. It would be like
    > claiming Safari is a derivative of Camino


    Actually, Safari is Konqueror by another name.

    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
    If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailtojones@kimbanet.com
    http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
    Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9 Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 Gb, OSX.4.10
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

  5. Re: Thunderbird Bugs

    On 12.08.2007 19:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused David E. Ross
    to generate the following:? :
    > Before adding new features, how about addressing discrepancies? In
    > particular, when will the following bugs be fixed? Some of these are
    > actually regressions since they were not problems with MailNews in
    > Netscape 4.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    any bug, it seems, that is older that 6 months *will not* be resolved -
    due to the fact that *that* bug referred to an older (ie no longer
    existant) version!

    Wait and Hope... you will enjoy your life more!

    reg

  6. Re: Thunderbird Bugs

    squaredancer wrote:
    > On 12.08.2007 19:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused David E.
    > Ross to generate the following:? :
    >> Before adding new features, how about addressing discrepancies? In
    >> particular, when will the following bugs be fixed? Some of these
    >> are actually regressions since they were not problems with MailNews
    >> in Netscape 4.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    > any bug, it seems, that is older that 6 months *will not* be resolved
    > - due to the fact that *that* bug referred to an older (ie no longer
    > existant) version!


    ...if its true even then anybody , using current version (2.0.0.0.*) ,
    will not face any problem .

    Situation 1: If that bug also exist in newer version then bug will be
    fixed .

    Situation 2: If that bug doesn't exist in newer version then nothing to
    worry about it .






  7. Re: Thunderbird Bugs

    Nir wrote:
    > squaredancer wrote:
    >> On 12.08.2007 19:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused David E.
    >> Ross to generate the following:? :
    >>> Before adding new features, how about addressing discrepancies? In
    >>> particular, when will the following bugs be fixed? Some of these
    >>> are actually regressions since they were not problems with MailNews
    >>> in Netscape 4.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >> any bug, it seems, that is older that 6 months *will not* be resolved
    >> - due to the fact that *that* bug referred to an older (ie no longer
    >> existant) version!

    >
    > ..if its true even then anybody , using current version (2.0.0.0.*) ,
    > will not face any problem .
    >
    > Situation 1: If that bug also exist in newer version then bug will be
    > fixed .
    >
    > Situation 2: If that bug doesn't exist in newer version then nothing to
    > worry about it .
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    Situation 3: Its a reoccurring bug that has been in a version tracing
    linage back to Communicator days. But either its so complicated to fix,
    or it pops so infrequently its considered nuisance and not worth effort
    to fix.

    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
    If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailtojones@kimbanet.com
    http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
    Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9 Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 Gb, OSX.4.10
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

  8. Re: Thunderbird Bugs

    On 8/14/2007 12:45 PM, squaredancer wrote:
    > On 12.08.2007 19:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused David E. Ross
    > to generate the following:? :
    >> Before adding new features, how about addressing discrepancies? In
    >> particular, when will the following bugs be fixed? Some of these are
    >> actually regressions since they were not problems with MailNews in
    >> Netscape 4.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    > any bug, it seems, that is older that 6 months *will not* be resolved -
    > due to the fact that *that* bug referred to an older (ie no longer
    > existant) version!
    >
    > Wait and Hope... you will enjoy your life more!
    >
    > reg


    When newer versions of Mozilla products are released and I install them,
    I often check to see which bugs that I reported were finally fixed. I
    used to then update the bug reports to show the current versions of the
    software and indicate "Still a problem". I stopped doing this when I
    received a nastygram telling me to stop spamming the bug reports.

    All of the bugs I listed are still problems in Thunderbird 2.0.0.6
    (20070728). The elapse of time and the incrementing of version numbers
    does not magically fix software.

    I understand you might have been facetious in your reply. Today, I'm
    not in a mood for humor on this subject.

    When I was a software test engineer working on systems for controlling
    military space satellites, the rule was that the software developers
    were to fix 9 old discrepancies for every 1 new feature. Since the
    contractor doing software development only got paid for new features,
    that rule ensured that bugs got fixed. That 9:1 ratio is still a good
    idea.

    --

    David E. Ross
    .

    Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
    bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation. 1997

  9. Re: Thunderbird Bugs

    David E. Ross wrote:
    > On 8/14/2007 12:45 PM, squaredancer wrote:
    >> On 12.08.2007 19:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused David E. Ross
    >> to generate the following:? :


    >
    > When newer versions of Mozilla products are released and I install them,
    > I often check to see which bugs that I reported were finally fixed. I
    > used to then update the bug reports to show the current versions of the
    > software and indicate "Still a problem". I stopped doing this when I
    > received a nastygram telling me to stop spamming the bug reports.
    >
    > All of the bugs I listed are still problems in Thunderbird 2.0.0.6
    > (20070728). The elapse of time and the incrementing of version numbers
    > does not magically fix software.
    >
    > I understand you might have been facetious in your reply. Today, I'm
    > not in a mood for humor on this subject.
    >
    > When I was a software test engineer working on systems for controlling
    > military space satellites, the rule was that the software developers
    > were to fix 9 old discrepancies for every 1 new feature. Since the
    > contractor doing software development only got paid for new features,
    > that rule ensured that bugs got fixed. That 9:1 ratio is still a good
    > idea.
    >


    Once more this is Open Source contributers to the code are not paid in
    the first place. So the rule is useless as an incentive for Thunderbird.
    Good idea I concur, but simply not practicable in this situation.



    http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/rumbl...b_2-0-0-6.html

    version 2.0.0.6 fixed only 3 security flaws, but then again it was
    released JUST to do that, nothing else, it contained no new features,
    version 2.0.0.5 on the other hand more than made up for it
    25 bug fixes no new features
    http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/rumbl...b_2-0-0-5.html

    So, the score over the last two versions is 28 bugs/flaws fixed to 0 new
    features. Better than your 9 to 1

  10. Re: Thunderbird Bugs

    David E. Ross wrote:

    > When I was a software test engineer working on systems for
    > controlling military space satellites, the rule was that the software
    > developers were to fix 9 old discrepancies for every 1 new feature.
    > Since the contractor doing software development only got paid for new
    > features, that rule ensured that bugs got fixed. That 9:1 ratio is
    > still a good idea.
    >


    "No obligation. "Open Source" is not the same as "the developers must do
    my bidding." The only person who has any obligation to fix the bugs you
    want fixed is you. Never act as if you expect someone to fix a bug by a
    particular date or release. This is merely obnoxious, and is likely to
    get the bug ignored. "

    ["https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=etiquette.html"]


  11. Re: Thunderbird Bugs

    On 8/14/2007 7:44 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
    > On 8/14/2007 12:45 PM, squaredancer wrote:
    >> On 12.08.2007 19:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused David E. Ross
    >> to generate the following:? :
    >>> Before adding new features, how about addressing discrepancies? In
    >>> particular, when will the following bugs be fixed? Some of these are
    >>> actually regressions since they were not problems with MailNews in
    >>> Netscape 4.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >> any bug, it seems, that is older that 6 months *will not* be resolved -
    >> due to the fact that *that* bug referred to an older (ie no longer
    >> existant) version!
    >>
    >> Wait and Hope... you will enjoy your life more!
    >>
    >> reg

    >
    > When newer versions of Mozilla products are released and I install them,
    > I often check to see which bugs that I reported were finally fixed. I
    > used to then update the bug reports to show the current versions of the
    > software and indicate "Still a problem". I stopped doing this when I
    > received a nastygram telling me to stop spamming the bug reports.


    If your nastgram was limited to
    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=264816 I don't see how it
    is an indictment of everyone else involved in the product. The process
    isn't perfect.

    Indeed, after you explained yourself in
    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=264816 you both dropped the
    issue.


  12. Re: Thunderbird Bugs

    On 14.08.2007 23:25, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Phillip M.
    Jones, C.E.T to generate the following:? :
    > Nir wrote:
    >
    >> squaredancer wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 12.08.2007 19:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused David E.
    >>> Ross to generate the following:? :
    >>>
    >>>> Before adding new features, how about addressing discrepancies? In
    >>>> particular, when will the following bugs be fixed? Some of these
    >>>> are actually regressions since they were not problems with MailNews
    >>>> in Netscape 4.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> any bug, it seems, that is older that 6 months *will not* be resolved
    >>> - due to the fact that *that* bug referred to an older (ie no longer
    >>> existant) version!
    >>>

    >> ..if its true even then anybody , using current version (2.0.0.0.*) ,
    >> will not face any problem .
    >>
    >> Situation 1: If that bug also exist in newer version then bug will be
    >> fixed .
    >>
    >> Situation 2: If that bug doesn't exist in newer version then nothing to
    >> worry about it .
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    > Situation 3: Its a reoccurring bug that has been in a version tracing
    > linage back to Communicator days. But either its so complicated to fix,
    > or it pops so infrequently its considered nuisance and not worth effort
    > to fix.
    >
    >

    or rather - what Nir obviously (and conveniently) pverlooks...

    the Bug was reported in vers 1.5.0
    vers 1.5.0 is no longer supported (we have ver 2.0.*)
    ergo - Bug is no longer of any relevance to the devs!

    IF - and only IF - the backlog of bugs is to 100% solved in a current
    update, then - and *ONLY* then - would Nir's rather stupid observations
    be counted as valid!

    reg

  13. Re: Thunderbird Bugs

    squaredancer wrote:
    > On 14.08.2007 23:25, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Phillip M.
    > Jones, C.E.T to generate the following:? :
    >> Nir wrote:
    >>
    >>> squaredancer wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 12.08.2007 19:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused David E.
    >>>> Ross to generate the following:? :
    >>>>
    >>>>> Before adding new features, how about addressing discrepancies? In
    >>>>> particular, when will the following bugs be fixed? Some of these
    >>>>> are actually regressions since they were not problems with MailNews
    >>>>> in Netscape 4.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> any bug, it seems, that is older that 6 months *will not* be resolved
    >>>> - due to the fact that *that* bug referred to an older (ie no longer
    >>>> existant) version!
    >>>>
    >>> ..if its true even then anybody , using current version (2.0.0.0.*) ,
    >>> will not face any problem .
    >>>
    >>> Situation 1: If that bug also exist in newer version then bug will be
    >>> fixed .
    >>>
    >>> Situation 2: If that bug doesn't exist in newer version then nothing to
    >>> worry about it .
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Situation 3: Its a reoccurring bug that has been in a version tracing
    >> linage back to Communicator days. But either its so complicated to
    >> fix, or it pops so infrequently its considered nuisance and not worth
    >> effort to fix.
    >>
    >>

    > or rather - what Nir obviously (and conveniently) pverlooks...
    >
    > the Bug was reported in vers 1.5.0
    > vers 1.5.0 is no longer supported (we have ver 2.0.*)
    > ergo - Bug is no longer of any relevance to the devs!
    >
    > IF - and only IF - the backlog of bugs is to 100% solved in a current
    > update, then - and *ONLY* then - would Nir's rather stupid observations
    > be counted as valid!
    >
    > reg


    I suppose they don't realize that its in 2.x series as well.

    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
    If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailtojones@kimbanet.com
    http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
    Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9 Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 Gb, OSX.4.10
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

  14. Re: Thunderbird Bugs

    On 16.08.2007 03:06, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Phillip M.
    Jones, C.E.T to generate the following:? :
    > squaredancer wrote:
    >
    >> On 14.08.2007 23:25, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Phillip M.
    >> Jones, C.E.T to generate the following:? :
    >>
    >>> Nir wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> squaredancer wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 12.08.2007 19:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused David E.
    >>>>> Ross to generate the following:? :
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Before adding new features, how about addressing discrepancies? In
    >>>>>> particular, when will the following bugs be fixed? Some of these
    >>>>>> are actually regressions since they were not problems with MailNews
    >>>>>> in Netscape 4.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> any bug, it seems, that is older that 6 months *will not* be resolved
    >>>>> - due to the fact that *that* bug referred to an older (ie no longer
    >>>>> existant) version!
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> ..if its true even then anybody , using current version (2.0.0.0.*) ,
    >>>> will not face any problem .
    >>>>
    >>>> Situation 1: If that bug also exist in newer version then bug will be
    >>>> fixed .
    >>>>
    >>>> Situation 2: If that bug doesn't exist in newer version then nothing to
    >>>> worry about it .
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Situation 3: Its a reoccurring bug that has been in a version tracing
    >>> linage back to Communicator days. But either its so complicated to
    >>> fix, or it pops so infrequently its considered nuisance and not worth
    >>> effort to fix.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >> or rather - what Nir obviously (and conveniently) pverlooks...
    >>
    >> the Bug was reported in vers 1.5.0
    >> vers 1.5.0 is no longer supported (we have ver 2.0.*)
    >> ergo - Bug is no longer of any relevance to the devs!
    >>
    >> IF - and only IF - the backlog of bugs is to 100% solved in a current
    >> update, then - and *ONLY* then - would Nir's rather stupid observations
    >> be counted as valid!
    >>
    >> reg
    >>

    >
    > I suppose they don't realize that its in 2.x series as well.
    >
    >

    exactly - and when someone reports it as a bug in vers 2.0.* then the
    report will be listed as "duplicate of Bug Number .....". And then vers
    3.* will be released and the wheel re-invented!

    reg

  15. Re: Thunderbird Bugs

    Nir wrote:
    > David E. Ross wrote:
    >
    >> When I was a software test engineer working on systems for
    >> controlling military space satellites, the rule was that the software
    >> developers were to fix 9 old discrepancies for every 1 new feature.
    >> Since the contractor doing software development only got paid for new
    >> features, that rule ensured that bugs got fixed. That 9:1 ratio is
    >> still a good idea.
    >>

    >
    > "No obligation. "Open Source" is not the same as "the developers must do
    > my bidding." The only person who has any obligation to fix the bugs you
    > want fixed is you. Never act as if you expect someone to fix a bug by a
    > particular date or release. This is merely obnoxious, and is likely to
    > get the bug ignored. "
    >
    > ["https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=etiquette.html"]
    >



    This also explains though why most open source apps seem to end up only
    half-baked....devs will introduce a cool new feature but never finish it
    to maturity....kinda like a lot of extensions to FF/TB these days. The
    commercial world seems to do the same things quite often, but if we want
    our FF/TB apps to be more widely adopted by folks like my parents who
    couldn't care less about open source vs whatever, these types of user
    functionality issues need to be addressed. A "dumb enduser" collective
    like my parents expect things to behave in an assumed way and shouldn't
    have to implement workarounds to get something done.

    Then again, Winders is full of workarounds as is pretty much any other
    OS......go figure. It's all academic anyway, right?


+ Reply to Thread