Regressions in TB 31.x and 33 - take two

Tanstaafl tanstaafl at libertytrek.org
Sun Oct 26 14:33:48 UTC 2014


A huge thank you!! to Magnus for pushing the fix for the spurious extra
blank addressing line being added when TAB is pressed for auto-completion.

It looks like there is also a patch from him that has been waiting for
approval for over a month to fix the much more impactful regression,
also mentioned by Jorg:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1043310
address auto-completion broken:
Highly visible bug, leads to mail being sent to people where the
recipient's name is misspelled (very embarrassing for the sender) and
will cause ill-formed addresses. Patch proposed but not accepted.

This one is *much* more impact-ful to our users, and is much more
important (in my opinion) to be fixed in the current version 31...

Maybe someone here can see about pushing this one for approval so it can
get into the next minor point release for TB 31?

On 10/26/2014 1:44 AM, Kent James <kent at caspia.com> wrote:
> 
> On 10/25/2014 11:34 AM, Jörg Knobloch wrote:
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1069419
>> userChrome.css not honoured
>> Kent James said: "no visibility". This is clearly not the case. 
>> userChrome.css not being honoured is noticed by all those who use it, 
>> admittedly, a minority.
> 
> Let's define "no visibility". What that means is that the bug has not 
> been elevated to the urgent attention of the developers who might try to 
> fix it, of whom I am one. Perhaps you misunderstand my definition. BMO 
> should be used as the mechanism to bring important bugs to the attention 
> of relevant developers.
> 
> But bug 1069419 in BMO is:
> - Unconfirmed
> - normal (default) importance
> - no "regression" keyword.
> - no flags
> - no votes
> - tiny CC list
> 
> That is the BMO representation of a bug that is has not been deemed 
> important. I am not saying that this bug is in fact unimportant, frankly 
> I don't really know. What I am saying is that, as currently represented 
> in the system, this is not a bug that is likely to get any attention. So 
> "the discussion went off on a tangent" precisely because bugs that you 
> claim are important are in fact not, as represented by the triage 
> process. Either the bug is truly unimportant, or the triage process is 
> broken. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, we asked whether the triage 
> process is broken and started to discuss it.



More information about the tb-planning mailing list