Hi all: I've up-loaded a down-graded version of xulrunner over at http://repository.jboss.org/xulrunner/ The reason for this is so that we may (if it's not impossible) use a matching xulrunner release across all jbds and jbosstools releases. Previously, the x64 release was 1.8.1.4 rather than the standard 1.8.1.3 used in windows, linux, and osx. Whether this can be worked into the build for 2.1.0 GA, or the update site, or not, remains to be seen. But I just wanted to make sure this is a possibility for GA. Personally, *I* hope it makes it in... but with the xulrunner version being technically lower than the old, anyone already using the product would have to manually downgrade the file in the plugins folder. Not exactly a great situation. Parity? Or ease of use? Which will win? - Rob Stryker _______________________________________________ jbosstools-dev mailing list jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev

Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: > This should be up to the VPE team to decide. > > I would prefer one version used across the board. > > Why was 1.8.1.4 used instead of 1.8.1.3 ? > Because we weren't able to compile 1.8.1.3 version on x86 platform. /sergey > /max > > >> Hi all: >> >> I've up-loaded a down-graded version of xulrunner over at >> http://repository.jboss.org/xulrunner/ >> >> The reason for this is so that we may (if it's not impossible) use a >> matching xulrunner release across all jbds and jbosstools releases. >> Previously, the x64 release was 1.8.1.4 rather than the standard 1.8.1.3 >> used in windows, linux, and osx. >> >> Whether this can be worked into the build for 2.1.0 GA, or the update >> site, or not, remains to be seen. But I just wanted to make sure this is >> a possibility for GA. Personally, *I* hope it makes it in... but with >> the xulrunner version being technically lower than the old, anyone >> already using the product would have to manually downgrade the file in >> the plugins folder. Not exactly a great situation. >> >> Parity? Or ease of use? Which will win? >> >> - Rob Stryker >> _______________________________________________ >> jbosstools-dev mailing list >> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > jbosstools-dev mailing list > jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >

Or we should have used the official releases by ATF, who *did* compile 1.8.1.3 and who released it.

Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: > So we should actually just have moved to 1.8.1.4 when we realized that ? > > /max > > >> Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >> >>> This should be up to the VPE team to decide. >>> >>> I would prefer one version used across the board. >>> >>> Why was 1.8.1.4 used instead of 1.8.1.3 ? >>> >>> >> Because we weren't able to compile 1.8.1.3 version on x86 platform. >> >> /sergey >> >>> /max >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi all: >>>> >>>> I've up-loaded a down-graded version of xulrunner over at >>>> http://repository.jboss.org/xulrunner/ >>>> >>>> The reason for this is so that we may (if it's not impossible) use a >>>> matching xulrunner release across all jbds and jbosstools releases. >>>> Previously, the x64 release was 1.8.1.4 rather than the standard >>>> 1.8.1.3 >>>> used in windows, linux, and osx. >>>> >>>> Whether this can be worked into the build for 2.1.0 GA, or the update >>>> site, or not, remains to be seen. But I just wanted to make sure >>>> this is >>>> a possibility for GA. Personally, *I* hope it makes it in... but >>>> with >>>> the xulrunner version being technically lower than the old, anyone >>>> already using the product would have to manually downgrade the >>>> file in >>>> the plugins folder. Not exactly a great situation. >>>> >>>> Parity? Or ease of use? Which will win? >>>> >>>> - Rob Stryker >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>> >>> >> > > > >

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/xulrunner/releases/1.8.1.3/contrib/...

Sergey Vasilyev wrote: > Rob Stryker wrote: >> Or we should have used the official releases by ATF, who *did* >> compile 1.8.1.3 and who released it. > Rob, could you please provide me with a link to 1.8.1.3 x86_64 > xulrunner plugin provided by ATF? > > /sergey >> >> Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>> So we should actually just have moved to 1.8.1.4 when we realized >>> that ? >>> >>> /max >>> >>> >>>> Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>>> This should be up to the VPE team to decide. >>>>> >>>>> I would prefer one version used across the board. >>>>> >>>>> Why was 1.8.1.4 used instead of 1.8.1.3 ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Because we weren't able to compile 1.8.1.3 version on x86 platform. >>>> >>>> /sergey >>>> >>>>> /max >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all: >>>>>> >>>>>> I've up-loaded a down-graded version of xulrunner over at >>>>>> http://repository.jboss.org/xulrunner/ >>>>>> >>>>>> The reason for this is so that we may (if it's not impossible) >>>>>> use a >>>>>> matching xulrunner release across all jbds and jbosstools releases. >>>>>> Previously, the x64 release was 1.8.1.4 rather than the standard >>>>>> 1.8.1.3 >>>>>> used in windows, linux, and osx. >>>>>> >>>>>> Whether this can be worked into the build for 2.1.0 GA, or the >>>>>> update >>>>>> site, or not, remains to be seen. But I just wanted to make sure >>>>>> this is >>>>>> a possibility for GA. Personally, *I* hope it makes it in... >>>>>> but with >>>>>> the xulrunner version being technically lower than the old, anyone >>>>>> already using the product would have to manually downgrade the >>>>>> file in >>>>>> the plugins folder. Not exactly a great situation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Parity? Or ease of use? Which will win? >>>>>> >>>>>> - Rob Stryker >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>>>>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>>>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >

Or we should have used the official releases by ATF, who *did* compile 1.8.1.3 and who released it.

Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: > So we should actually just have moved to 1.8.1.4 when we realized that ? > > /max > > >> Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >> >>> This should be up to the VPE team to decide. >>> >>> I would prefer one version used across the board. >>> >>> Why was 1.8.1.4 used instead of 1.8.1.3 ? >>> >>> >> Because we weren't able to compile 1.8.1.3 version on x86 platform. >> >> /sergey >> >>> /max >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi all: >>>> >>>> I've up-loaded a down-graded version of xulrunner over at >>>> http://repository.jboss.org/xulrunner/ >>>> >>>> The reason for this is so that we may (if it's not impossible) use a >>>> matching xulrunner release across all jbds and jbosstools releases. >>>> Previously, the x64 release was 1.8.1.4 rather than the standard 1.8.1.3 >>>> used in windows, linux, and osx. >>>> >>>> Whether this can be worked into the build for 2.1.0 GA, or the update >>>> site, or not, remains to be seen. But I just wanted to make sure this is >>>> a possibility for GA. Personally, *I* hope it makes it in... but with >>>> the xulrunner version being technically lower than the old, anyone >>>> already using the product would have to manually downgrade the file in >>>> the plugins folder. Not exactly a great situation. >>>> >>>> Parity? Or ease of use? Which will win? >>>> >>>> - Rob Stryker >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>> >>> >> > > > >

Rob, The original 64 bit build we were sent by you was 1.8.1.4. There was _never_ a 1.8.1.3 64 bit build until recently. When I asked at Beta1 release time if we should use 1.8.1.3 I was told to use what we already had .. so it looks like we will need to either force users Beta1/CR1 64bit users to downgrade or stick with 1.8.1.4 for 64 bit and wait for ATF to upgrade to 1.8.1.4 for the rest of the binaries as well On May 13, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Rob Stryker wrote: > http://repository.jboss.org/xulrunner/org.mozilla.xulrunner.gtk.linux.x86... > > > I built the one at the above URL and have mailed it to philippe > Ombredanne <pombredanne(a)nexb.com&gt; > > > Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>> Or we should have used the official releases by ATF, who *did* compile >>> 1.8.1.3 and who released it. >>> >> >> I thought that is what we did. They just never released a 64 bit >> version of it. >> >> /max >> >> >>> Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>> >>>> So we should actually just have moved to 1.8.1.4 when we realized >>>> that ? >>>> >>>> /max >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> This should be up to the VPE team to decide. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would prefer one version used across the board. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why was 1.8.1.4 used instead of 1.8.1.3 ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Because we weren't able to compile 1.8.1.3 version on x86 platform. >>>>> >>>>> /sergey >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> /max >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've up-loaded a down-graded version of xulrunner over at >>>>>>> http://repository.jboss.org/xulrunner/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The reason for this is so that we may (if it's not impossible) >>>>>>> use a >>>>>>> matching xulrunner release across all jbds and jbosstools >>>>>>> releases. >>>>>>> Previously, the x64 release was 1.8.1.4 rather than the >>>>>>> standard 1.8.1.3 >>>>>>> used in windows, linux, and osx. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Whether this can be worked into the build for 2.1.0 GA, or the >>>>>>> update >>>>>>> site, or not, remains to be seen. But I just wanted to make >>>>>>> sure this is >>>>>>> a possibility for GA. Personally, *I* hope it makes it in... >>>>>>> but with >>>>>>> the xulrunner version being technically lower than the old, anyone >>>>>>> already using the product would have to manually downgrade the >>>>>>> file in >>>>>>> the plugins folder. Not exactly a great situation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Parity? Or ease of use? Which will win? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Rob Stryker >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>>>>>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>>>>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > jbosstools-dev mailing list > jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev

I suppose the question here is... how are our users upgrading? My *impression* is that they're just unzipping everything into a new build. How else would they upgrade manually between a CR1 and a GA aside from unzip it all over again? If they're just unzipping everything again, then we're not forcing them to downgrade a small part. They're just unzipping a different one. Is the update site functional between point releases? Between beta / cr1 / ga?

- RS Marshall Culpepper wrote: > Rob, > > The original 64 bit build we were sent by you was 1.8.1.4. There was > _never_ a 1.8.1.3 64 bit build until recently. When I asked at Beta1 > release time if we should use 1.8.1.3 I was told to use what we > already had .. so it looks like we will need to either force users > Beta1/CR1 64bit users to downgrade or stick with 1.8.1.4 for 64 bit > and wait for ATF to upgrade to 1.8.1.4 for the rest of the binaries as > well > > On May 13, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Rob Stryker wrote: > >> http://repository.jboss.org/xulrunner/org.mozilla.xulrunner.gtk.linux.x86... >> >> >> I built the one at the above URL and have mailed it to philippe >> Ombredanne <pombredanne(a)nexb.com&gt; >> >> >> Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>>> Or we should have used the official releases by ATF, who *did* compile >>>> 1.8.1.3 and who released it. >>>> >>> >>> I thought that is what we did. They just never released a 64 bit >>> version of it. >>> >>> /max >>> >>> >>>> Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>>> So we should actually just have moved to 1.8.1.4 when we realized >>>>> that ? >>>>> >>>>> /max >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> This should be up to the VPE team to decide. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would prefer one version used across the board. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why was 1.8.1.4 used instead of 1.8.1.3 ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Because we weren't able to compile 1.8.1.3 version on x86 platform. >>>>>> >>>>>> /sergey >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> /max >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've up-loaded a down-graded version of xulrunner over at >>>>>>>> http://repository.jboss.org/xulrunner/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The reason for this is so that we may (if it's not impossible) >>>>>>>> use a >>>>>>>> matching xulrunner release across all jbds and jbosstools >>>>>>>> releases. >>>>>>>> Previously, the x64 release was 1.8.1.4 rather than the >>>>>>>> standard 1.8.1.3 >>>>>>>> used in windows, linux, and osx. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Whether this can be worked into the build for 2.1.0 GA, or the >>>>>>>> update >>>>>>>> site, or not, remains to be seen. But I just wanted to make >>>>>>>> sure this is >>>>>>>> a possibility for GA. Personally, *I* hope it makes it in... >>>>>>>> but with >>>>>>>> the xulrunner version being technically lower than the old, anyone >>>>>>>> already using the product would have to manually downgrade the >>>>>>>> file in >>>>>>>> the plugins folder. Not exactly a great situation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Parity? Or ease of use? Which will win? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Rob Stryker >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>>>>>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> jbosstools-dev mailing list >> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >

I was looking at these today and noticed there is about 2 meg difference between .3 and .4 - why ? /max > Hi all: > > I've up-loaded a down-graded version of xulrunner over at > http://repository.jboss.org/xulrunner/ > > The reason for this is so that we may (if it's not impossible) use a > matching xulrunner release across all jbds and jbosstools releases. > Previously, the x64 release was 1.8.1.4 rather than the standard 1.8.1.3 > used in windows, linux, and osx. > > Whether this can be worked into the build for 2.1.0 GA, or the update > site, or not, remains to be seen. But I just wanted to make sure this is > a possibility for GA. Personally, *I* hope it makes it in... but with > the xulrunner version being technically lower than the old, anyone > already using the product would have to manually downgrade the file in > the plugins folder. Not exactly a great situation. > > Parity? Or ease of use? Which will win? > > - Rob Stryker > _______________________________________________ > jbosstools-dev mailing list > jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev > > _______________________________________________ jbosstools-dev mailing list jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev

Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: > I was looking at these today and noticed there is about 2 meg > difference between .3 and .4 - why ? > > /max >

> >> Hi all: >> >> I've up-loaded a down-graded version of xulrunner over at >> http://repository.jboss.org/xulrunner/ >> >> The reason for this is so that we may (if it's not impossible) use a >> matching xulrunner release across all jbds and jbosstools releases. >> Previously, the x64 release was 1.8.1.4 rather than the standard >> 1.8.1.3 >> used in windows, linux, and osx. >> >> Whether this can be worked into the build for 2.1.0 GA, or the update >> site, or not, remains to be seen. But I just wanted to make sure >> this is >> a possibility for GA. Personally, *I* hope it makes it in... but with >> the xulrunner version being technically lower than the old, anyone >> already using the product would have to manually downgrade the file in >> the plugins folder. Not exactly a great situation. >> >> Parity? Or ease of use? Which will win? >> >> - Rob Stryker >> _______________________________________________ >> jbosstools-dev mailing list >> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > jbosstools-dev mailing list > jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev > Which version of xulrunner did you compare? Where did you get it? /sergey _______________________________________________ jbosstools-dev mailing list jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev

I was looking at these today and noticed there is about 2 meg difference between .3 and .4 - why ? /max > Hi all: > > I've up-loaded a down-graded version of xulrunner over at > http://repository.jboss.org/xulrunner/ > > The reason for this is so that we may (if it's not impossible) use a > matching xulrunner release across all jbds and jbosstools releases. > Previously, the x64 release was 1.8.1.4 rather than the standard 1.8.1.3 > used in windows, linux, and osx. > > Whether this can be worked into the build for 2.1.0 GA, or the update > site, or not, remains to be seen. But I just wanted to make sure this is > a possibility for GA. Personally, *I* hope it makes it in... but with > the xulrunner version being technically lower than the old, anyone > already using the product would have to manually downgrade the file in > the plugins folder. Not exactly a great situation. > > Parity? Or ease of use? Which will win? > > - Rob Stryker > _______________________________________________ > jbosstools-dev mailing list > jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev > >

Guys, What is the status for this 64-bit thing ? We need to move faster ,) Did you just randomly choose different compile options that made the distribution 2 meg different ? What is the known differences between .3 and .4 ? Should we just live with the small version difference ? I can't answer these since I don't know the details of xulrunner - you guys do. -max > Sergey said something about tests being included. > > Not sure > > Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: > >> I was looking at these today and noticed there is about 2 meg difference between .3 and .4 - why ? >> >> /max >> >> >> >>> Hi all: >>> >>> I've up-loaded a down-graded version of xulrunner over at >>> http://repository.jboss.org/xulrunner/ >>> >>> The reason for this is so that we may (if it's not impossible) use a >>> matching xulrunner release across all jbds and jbosstools releases. >>> Previously, the x64 release was 1.8.1.4 rather than the standard 1.8.1.3 >>> used in windows, linux, and osx. >>> >>> Whether this can be worked into the build for 2.1.0 GA, or the update >>> site, or not, remains to be seen. But I just wanted to make sure this is >>> a possibility for GA. Personally, *I* hope it makes it in... but with >>> the xulrunner version being technically lower than the old, anyone >>> already using the product would have to manually downgrade the file in >>> the plugins folder. Not exactly a great situation. >>> >>> Parity? Or ease of use? Which will win? >>> >>> - Rob Stryker >>> _______________________________________________ >>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >

Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: > Guys, > > What is the status for this 64-bit thing ? > We need to move faster ,) > > Did you just randomly choose different compile options that made the distribution 2 meg different ? > > What is the known differences between .3 and .4 ? > > Should we just live with the small version difference ? > > I can't answer these since I don't know the details of xulrunner - you guys do. > > -max > > In .4 was fixed some bugs so we can live with this difference. If we will be compile xulrunner 1.8.1.3 , it's better to build with following arguments( --enable-application=xulrunner --disable-tests --enable-svg --enable-canvas), because with such arguments was build xulrunner 1.8.1.3 from atf. Also looks like xulrunner 1.8.1* in end of life, so may be we should migrate to xulrunner 1.9? For now available only rc1, but guys from mozilla says that more better than 1.8*. About new features and difference in xulrunner 1.9 you can read here(http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Firefox_3_for_developers). >> Sergey said something about tests being included. >> >> Not sure >> >> Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >> >>> I was looking at these today and noticed there is about 2 meg difference between .3 and .4 - why ? >>> >>> /max >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi all: >>>> >>>> I've up-loaded a down-graded version of xulrunner over at >>>> http://repository.jboss.org/xulrunner/ >>>> >>>> The reason for this is so that we may (if it's not impossible) use a >>>> matching xulrunner release across all jbds and jbosstools releases. >>>> Previously, the x64 release was 1.8.1.4 rather than the standard 1.8.1.3 >>>> used in windows, linux, and osx. >>>> >>>> Whether this can be worked into the build for 2.1.0 GA, or the update >>>> site, or not, remains to be seen. But I just wanted to make sure this is >>>> a possibility for GA. Personally, *I* hope it makes it in... but with >>>> the xulrunner version being technically lower than the old, anyone >>>> already using the product would have to manually downgrade the file in >>>> the plugins folder. Not exactly a great situation. >>>> >>>> Parity? Or ease of use? Which will win? >>>> >>>> - Rob Stryker >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > jbosstools-dev mailing list > jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >

Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: > Guys, > > What is the status for this 64-bit thing ? > We need to move faster ,) > > Did you just randomly choose different compile options that made the distribution 2 meg different ? > > What is the known differences between .3 and .4 ? > > Should we just live with the small version difference ? > > I can't answer these since I don't know the details of xulrunner - you guys do. > > -max > > In .4 was fixed some bugs so we can live with this difference. If we will be compile xulrunner 1.8.1.3 , it's better to build with following arguments( --enable-application=xulrunner --disable-tests --enable-svg --enable-canvas), because with such arguments was build xulrunner 1.8.1.3 from atf. Also looks like xulrunner 1.8.1* in end of life, so may be we should migrate to xulrunner 1.9? For now available only rc1, but guys from mozilla says that more better than 1.8*. About new features and difference in xulrunner 1.9 you can read here(http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Firefox_3_for_developers). >> Sergey said something about tests being included. >> >> Not sure >> >> Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >> >>> I was looking at these today and noticed there is about 2 meg difference between .3 and .4 - why ? >>> >>> /max >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi all: >>>> >>>> I've up-loaded a down-graded version of xulrunner over at >>>> http://repository.jboss.org/xulrunner/ >>>> >>>> The reason for this is so that we may (if it's not impossible) use a >>>> matching xulrunner release across all jbds and jbosstools releases. >>>> Previously, the x64 release was 1.8.1.4 rather than the standard 1.8.1.3 >>>> used in windows, linux, and osx. >>>> >>>> Whether this can be worked into the build for 2.1.0 GA, or the update >>>> site, or not, remains to be seen. But I just wanted to make sure this is >>>> a possibility for GA. Personally, *I* hope it makes it in... but with >>>> the xulrunner version being technically lower than the old, anyone >>>> already using the product would have to manually downgrade the file in >>>> the plugins folder. Not exactly a great situation. >>>> >>>> Parity? Or ease of use? Which will win? >>>> >>>> - Rob Stryker >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > jbosstools-dev mailing list > jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >