Pale Moon's version number

Someone Else · Unread 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.

Unread post by **Moonchild** » 2020-02-13, 14:44

Extension Compatibility

New Tobin Paradigm · Unread 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.

Someone Else · Unread 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?

New Tobin Paradigm · Unread 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.

Octopuss · Unread post by **Octopuss** » 2020-02-13, 18:43

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

New Tobin Paradigm · Unread post by **New Tobin Paradigm** » 2020-02-13, 18:53

Think. Use your memory. What happened at Firefox 29?

Octopuss · Unread 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).

Unread 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.

Andrew Herbert · Unread 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?

New Tobin Paradigm · Unread 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.

Pale Moon forum

Pale Moon's version number

Pale Moon's version number

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Re: Pale Moon's version number

Re: Pale Moon's version number