Page 1 of 1

Pale Moon's version number

Posted: 2020-02-13, 14:33
by Someone Else
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.

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Posted: 2020-02-13, 14:44
by Moonchild
Extension Compatibility

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Posted: 2020-02-13, 15:33
by New Tobin Paradigm
This is the same reason that Basilisk and Interlink retain their respective 52.9 version numbers even if it isn't widely displayed.

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Posted: 2020-02-13, 15:39
by Someone Else
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?

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Posted: 2020-02-13, 16:05
by New Tobin Paradigm
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.

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Posted: 2020-02-13, 18:43
by Octopuss
29 is some sort of magical version number after which all hell will break loose?

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Posted: 2020-02-13, 18:53
by New Tobin Paradigm
Think. Use your memory. What happened at Firefox 29?

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Posted: 2020-02-14, 17:58
by Octopuss
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).

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Posted: 2020-02-14, 18:35
by Isengrim
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.

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Posted: 2020-02-15, 14:52
by Andrew Herbert
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?

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Posted: 2020-02-15, 21:12
by New Tobin Paradigm
Do some research. I am not gonna hand you every answer on a silver platter that can be found on this very forum.