<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02-Jul-19 9:17 PM, Magnus Melin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c8f0217f-a9af-7648-d05c-b3c5ae434af8@iki.fi">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Worth considering. However, while the option exists, if it's
not used in Firefox then there's no knowing if/when/what
disabling it will break...</p>
</blockquote>
Is that not the case for basically everything we do these days
involving the Mozilla code base. The other side of this coin is
that Firefox market share is not growing. Perhaps they are doing
something wrong and we are following their lead. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c8f0217f-a9af-7648-d05c-b3c5ae434af8@iki.fi">
<p>The feature was created on the premise that internal data
storage (db such) doesn't work well with downgrading, when the
database structure changed. Since there is no backward compat
promise of any sort, but rather the opposite, I'm also concerned
downgrade attempts would increasingly mess up your profile data.
<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
I am concerned that what I consider the purist view. The new version
is a must for the user and they must be forced down this path with
no way to opt out is simply alienating users. WE tell them their
add-ons do not work with this version and are disabled. <br>
<br>
Do we offer an alternative, like stay where you are for a month and
see if that changes. No, we force an upgrade that the user then
immediately starts trying to downgrade because the upgrade turned
out to not be an improvement. Support forums are full of the term
"roll back" and given the ability to do so with windows operating
systems upgrades for the last decade, we are not meeting user
expectations at all in not offering to do it for them, However
Mozilla have taken the exact reverse position, they have gone out of
their way to make it hard. This a simply a bad decision. As Mark
Banner pointed out it has benefits in simplifying the lives of
developers, but I have not yet seen a single user facing benefit.
There is the intangible "it is safe" approaches. Users however are
not interested in development, they are interested in getting their
task completed and being interrupted by an "upgrade" that is
removing functionality without warning is not something they need or
want.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c8f0217f-a9af-7648-d05c-b3c5ae434af8@iki.fi">
<p>Open to other ideas for solution if opening the Profile Manager
is difficult. Maybe it's enough to add a link to a support
article.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Perhaps we should have integrated the profile manager (Profile
switcher add-on) long ago. But it is late in the beta process to be
looking at fixing the issues created other than by flicking the
preference for the next release. Perhaps we could integrate the
profile manager in the next point release and then turn on your
preference so users that want to use the profile manager do not need
a support article to find and open it. This is a classic example of
poor user experience by design being sold at a "feature".<br>
<br>
Matt<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c8f0217f-a9af-7648-d05c-b3c5ae434af8@iki.fi">
<p> </p>
<p> -Magnus<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02-07-2019 06:16, Geoff Lankow
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7ed1e7f5-2f2a-9b01-87d0-0fdfa14e015b@thunderbird.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<p>(That's the "You’ve launched an older version of Firefox"
dialog.)<br>
</p>
<p>In <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1535116">bug
1535116</a> we've proposed to change the text in the dialog
to better suit Thunderbird. That's easy enough.</p>
<p>Magnus also wants me to change the "Create New Profile" to
instead open the Profile Manager. That's not as easy as it
sounds. The proper way to do it is through nsAppRunner.cpp.
We're in a pre-startup state (although we do have XPCOM).
Technically we <i>could</i> show the Profile Manager window
and mimic the expected results, but I'm not comfortable with
that.</p>
<p>I digress. My point is: why do we have this thing at all? Is
there a good reason we want to go to these lengths, other than
Downgrading Is A Bad Idea™? It can be removed with <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://searchfox.org/comm-central/rev/679db3c87c1a356a66433d6c2adf6fca1f20789f/mail/moz.configure#75">a
one line config change</a>.</p>
<p>GL</p>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
tb-planning mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tb-planning@mozilla.org" moz-do-not-send="true">tb-planning@mozilla.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
tb-planning mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tb-planning@mozilla.org">tb-planning@mozilla.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning">https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
“Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.”
<i>― Friedrich von Schiller, Die Jungfrau von Orleans </i></div>
</body>
</html>