Talk:Common misconceptions about Thunderbird: Difference between revisions

From MozillaZine Knowledge Base
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (example that Wsm asked for)
No edit summary
Line 9: Line 9:
: [[User:Wsm|Wsm]] 01:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
: [[User:Wsm|Wsm]] 01:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
::One example is the API change in 3.0 that effected [[Delete_a_message_without_opening_another_message]] .
::One example is the API change in 3.0 that effected [[Delete_a_message_without_opening_another_message]] .
:::thanks. that's a behavioral change, not a a change that broke API specs afaik. // question: does mailtweak work around bug 531534?  if it does, the add-on could be mentioned in the bug.[[User:Wsm|Wsm]] 11:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


2. I removed "!-- this doesn't make quite sense, what are you trying to say here? -- " in "''Thunderbird will assign you an email address''" as its inappropriate to make editorial comments in the article. They belong in the discussion page. I was trying to explain what "email provider" means (its just techno-babble to some readers) by having the reader visualize some of the potential problems if you used a local POP3 server instead. However, I did not want to get mired down in technical details by mentioning retrying or queuing messages. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 00:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
2. I removed "!-- this doesn't make quite sense, what are you trying to say here? -- " in "''Thunderbird will assign you an email address''" as its inappropriate to make editorial comments in the article. They belong in the discussion page. I was trying to explain what "email provider" means (its just techno-babble to some readers) by having the reader visualize some of the potential problems if you used a local POP3 server instead. However, I did not want to get mired down in technical details by mentioning retrying or queuing messages. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 00:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
: It still appears to me confusing, especially the part of "loosing e-mails when the PC was powered off" (which doesn't really apply as the sending MTA would retry sending for considerable time). I'd replace "powered off" with "being offline for some time" to emphasize on the connection rather than the computer's state, but also make it more clear that in this scenario all mail would be received locally on that=your machine (which is the context I'm missing in the current phrasing). --[[User:Rsx11m|Rsx11m]] 18:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
: It still appears to me confusing, especially the part of "loosing e-mails when the PC was powered off" (which doesn't really apply as the sending MTA would retry sending for considerable time). I'd replace "powered off" with "being offline for some time" to emphasize on the connection rather than the computer's state, but also make it more clear that in this scenario all mail would be received locally on that=your machine (which is the context I'm missing in the current phrasing). --[[User:Rsx11m|Rsx11m]] 18:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
::I tried to implement your suggestions. Is it less confusing now? [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 11:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
::I tried to implement your suggestions. Is it less confusing now? [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 11:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:41, 20 September 2010

1. I had originally named one of the sections "If your add-on isn't supported you need to wait for a version of Thunderbird that supports it" and another editor renamed it to "If your add-on isn't supported you need to wait for a version of the addon that supports this version of Thunderbird". That changed the focus from users not upgrading to a new version of Thunderbird until it supports their favorite add-ons to users unable to use their favorite add-ons after upgrading Thunderbird, but that seemed a reasonable change.

The problem (or rather inconsistency) I saw with that wording was that it reversed the logic from "negative" (i.e., the misconception a user may have) to "positive" (i.e., how it's supposed to be) and is still fairly long. I tried to streamline it a bit into a more concise title reflecting the misconception. Thus, I'd actually prefer your original wording, unless I got something completely wrong. Or, reading this again, if your point is that add-ons can be tweaked by the user without any need to wait for an update by the user, then my edits were obviously wrong. --Rsx11m 18:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
My point was that "add-ons can be tweaked by the user without any need to wait for an update". I agree with your comments about negative logic and the original wording being better. I'll switch it back to the original wording. One reason why I prefer it is it most closely matches the wording I've seen used by users in the forum. Tanstaafl 11:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Later on a different editor renamed it "Thunderbird has to take care of add-ons which broke after an update" and added the sentence "In general, it's the extension's author's responsibility to update an add-on if it does no longer work after a Thunderbird update" added. I undid that change as IMHO it misses the whole point of the section, and could be interpreted as an attempt to defend Mozilla Messaging's policy of not doing anything to support the author, even when they deliberately break an API. Tanstaafl 00:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

good changes
sounds like you have a recent example in mind WRT the API change that caused problems. citation?
for completeness in the notes, we should be clear that the issues in this area cuts many ways: 1. There have been cases where extension authors have knowingly and unknown been too liberal with their max version, causing problems for users. (citation needed? I forget the names, although, frankly I am reluctant to single them out) 2. users who don't test safe mode before reporting problems and who have had faulty add-ons because of suppressed comparability checking. 3. it is abundantly clear that the entire area needs love, from the fact that it would be preferable to have add-on compat checking occur BEFORE upgrades, to getting us to the newer gecko platform sooner that will improve the UI, restricts compat checking, provides jetpack, etc. In short, there's a whole lotta work that needs to be done, from getting more people to help vet add-ons at AMO, to getting more thunderbird testers which will help (in small ways) to shorten release cycles.
Wsm 01:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
One example is the API change in 3.0 that effected Delete_a_message_without_opening_another_message .
thanks. that's a behavioral change, not a a change that broke API specs afaik. // question: does mailtweak work around bug 531534? if it does, the add-on could be mentioned in the bug.Wsm 11:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

2. I removed "!-- this doesn't make quite sense, what are you trying to say here? -- " in "Thunderbird will assign you an email address" as its inappropriate to make editorial comments in the article. They belong in the discussion page. I was trying to explain what "email provider" means (its just techno-babble to some readers) by having the reader visualize some of the potential problems if you used a local POP3 server instead. However, I did not want to get mired down in technical details by mentioning retrying or queuing messages. Tanstaafl 00:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It still appears to me confusing, especially the part of "loosing e-mails when the PC was powered off" (which doesn't really apply as the sending MTA would retry sending for considerable time). I'd replace "powered off" with "being offline for some time" to emphasize on the connection rather than the computer's state, but also make it more clear that in this scenario all mail would be received locally on that=your machine (which is the context I'm missing in the current phrasing). --Rsx11m 18:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I tried to implement your suggestions. Is it less confusing now? Tanstaafl 11:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)