Pale Moon's version number

General project discussion
Forum rules
This General Discussion board is meant for topics that are still relevant to Pale Moon, web browsers, browser tech, and related, but don't have a more fitting board available.

Please stick to the relevance of this forum here, which focuses on everything around the Pale Moon project and its user community. "Random" subjects don't belong here, and should be posted in the Off-Topic board.
Locked
Someone Else
Banned user
Banned user
Posts: 8
Joined: 2020-02-13, 14:09

Pale Moon's version number

Post by Someone Else » 2020-02-13, 14:33

I am just wondering, back when Pale Moon switched to its own Goanna engine, why was the version number not reset
to something more logical and sensible? As it is now Pale Moon's current version number seems misleading.
There have not been 28 individual major releases of the browser from 1.0 to 28.0.
The only reason the version number is in the 20s now, is because up until a certain point it used to follow the Firefox codebase and version numbering.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 27766
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Tranås, SE
Contact:

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Post by Moonchild » 2020-02-13, 14:44

Extension Compatibility
"There will be times when the position you advocate, no matter how well framed and supported, will not be accepted by the public simply because you are who you are." -- Merrill Rose
Image

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 7796
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Space, maybe..

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2020-02-13, 15:33

This is the same reason that Basilisk and Interlink retain their respective 52.9 version numbers even if it isn't widely displayed.
Image
We have analyzed your defensive capabilities as being unable to withstand us.
If you defend yourselves, you will be punished.


Image

Someone Else
Banned user
Banned user
Posts: 8
Joined: 2020-02-13, 14:09

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Post by Someone Else » 2020-02-13, 15:39

Moonchild wrote:
2020-02-13, 14:44
Extension Compatibility
So what would have happened if the Pale Moon version number had been reset to for example 2.0 and gone up from there
after the transition to the Goanna engine? All extensions would have been broken and would have had to be rewritten?

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 7796
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Space, maybe..

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2020-02-13, 16:05

Correct. Indeed there will be a new rash of incompatible extensions on release of the new milestone, Pale Moon 29. Because from the extension's standpoint it is going to think it is Firefox 29. This will cause conditional code paths to fail because of missing Australis components and dependent code. Simply put, Pale Moon is not Firefox and never will be again. It was true in 2015 will be true at Pale Moon 29.

Firefox extensions need to be properly forked and made into Pale Moon extensions. That is all there is to it. It's been a long time coming, five years in fact so snap to it.
Image
We have analyzed your defensive capabilities as being unable to withstand us.
If you defend yourselves, you will be punished.


Image

Octopuss
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 560
Joined: 2015-01-26, 13:58

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Post by Octopuss » 2020-02-13, 18:43

29 is some sort of magical version number after which all hell will break loose?

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 7796
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Space, maybe..

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2020-02-13, 18:53

Think. Use your memory. What happened at Firefox 29?
Image
We have analyzed your defensive capabilities as being unable to withstand us.
If you defend yourselves, you will be punished.


Image

Octopuss
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 560
Joined: 2015-01-26, 13:58

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Post by Octopuss » 2020-02-14, 17:58

I have no idea, I haven't used Firefox for who knows how many years (and I barely ever go here anymore so I'm out of the development-related loop).

User avatar
Isengrim
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1240
Joined: 2015-09-08, 22:54
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Post by Isengrim » 2020-02-14, 18:35

IIRC FF 29 is when they introduced the Australis UI. So any non-PM-specific extensions that tried to retain compatibility with both UI styles in the same version might break if they think PM 29 is now FF 29.
Linux Mint 19.3 Cinnamon (64-bit), Debian Bullseye (64-bit), Windows 7 (64-bit)
"As long as there is someone who will appreciate the work involved in the creation, the effort is time well spent." ~ Tetsuzou Kamadani, Cave Story

User avatar
Andrew Herbert
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 154
Joined: 2019-11-25, 21:46

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Post by Andrew Herbert » 2020-02-15, 14:52

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:
2020-02-13, 15:33
This is the same reason that Basilisk and Interlink retain their respective 52.9 version numbers even if it isn't widely displayed.
Did Thunderbird not have significant application code changes after Australis?

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 7796
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Space, maybe..

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2020-02-15, 21:12

Do some research. I am not gonna hand you every answer on a silver platter that can be found on this very forum.
Image
We have analyzed your defensive capabilities as being unable to withstand us.
If you defend yourselves, you will be punished.


Image

Locked