I think Mark's right here; if you mention greasemonkey on the web,
you'll get "Did you downgrade to 0.3.5 because of the vulnerability?"
and I might answer, I'm using "0.4.2." But then I'd get, "you mean from
before the exploit?" "No, that's the one from yesterday."<br>
The point is that there is confusion concerning exactly which version
is from when; this is especially exacerbated by the regression to 0.3.5
and later re-progression to 0.4.x. I think Marks is just suggesting the
move to 0.5 for *clarity's* sake. It removes all ambiguity to say, "now
we're at 0.5."<br>
Also, if this rewrite doesn't deserve an increment in the second
decimal place, nothing does. I mean, the underlying engine is totally
rewritten. Heck, firefox is moving from 1.0.6 to 1.5 on a whim
(probably for similar reasons of clarity, actually). Anyway, seems to
me this release deserves a 0.5 for its own sake and for the sake of
users who don't care to have to think too hard about version numbers
(but who can easily tell the difference between a 4 and a 5).<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/29/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Aaron Boodman</b> <<a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a>> wrote:
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">> 0.4.2a1 moved the location of the scripts directory outside the<br>> extensions tree and deleted everybody's scripts, re-introduced an old
<br>> problem with forward-defined functions, and introduced a new scope<br>> chain (which, as it turned out, introduced a new security<br>> vulnerability).<br><br>* The scripts were already getting deleted, on every reinstall, on
<br>Deer Park - this version didn't introduce it. This was due to a<br>redesign of extension manager by Ben Goodger including a change to how<br>uninstallation is handled. 0.4.2a1 moved the scripts directory outside<br>the extension tree to *fix* this problem. Unfortunately it isn't
<br>possible to migrate the scripts directory on Deer Park, which is what<br>my mail about manually moving was for.<br><br>* The scope chain change was trying to address some concerns that<br>people on this list had, for compatibility.
<br><br>* The change to scoping regressed the forward references inadvertently.<br><br>> 0.4.1a3 changed the scoping chain, which closed the security<br>> vulnerability introduced in 0.4.2a1 but broke at least 2 of my scripts
<br>> which I had modified for Deer Park compatibility under 0.4.1a3 or<br>> 0.4.2a1.<br><br>I'd like to know what specifically broke them.<br><br>> Please, for the love of God, let the 0.4.x.y.z line die a quiet and
<br>> well-deserved death, and call the next public release "0.5".<br><br>I don't really know what you mean by this. What difference does the<br>number make? I only increased it so that versioning could work.
<br><br>I'm sorry that stuff regressed for you but isn't that sorta what<br>happens when you're trying trying to write a book against a piece of<br>alpha software? I'm trying to fix bugs and respond to your guys'<br>requests here, not tinker because I have nothing better to do.
<br><br>If you give me the details on how stuff broke, I can fix it. Whinging<br>is less productive.<br><br>Yeesh.<br>_______________________________________________<br>Greasemonkey mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Greasemonkey@mozdev.org">