Live data from Hacker News

17 year old Firefox feature request fixed

bugzilla.mozilla.org

61–70 of 281 posts

Re: 17 year old Firefox feature request fixed

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is jira.mozilla.com private?

Also, why is there a jira.mozilla.com at all, and why is there a jira.mozilla.COM?

You don't know about non-profit shenanigans? Ok, so, let me tell you...

There are two entities: the Mozilla Foundation--which is what everyone thinks of when they hear "Mozilla" and think Mozilla is a non-profit--and the Mozilla Corporation--which is what actually comprises the bulk of Mozilla's operations.

The Foundation does practically nothing. Your donations to the Foundation don't go towards development of Firefox, they mostly go to pay the salaries of the Foundation employees, who mostly work to... raise money for the Foundation to pay their salaries. This is a problem with a large number of non-profits in general--that most of the money raised is just spent on maintaining the fundraising apparatus. But in particular at Mozilla, it's a drop in the bucket of what Mozilla Corporation needs to keep operating.

The vast majority of the actual software development work is done under the corporation. And the vast majority of funding that the corporation has comes through a search advertising deal that Mozilla struck with Google.

Re: 17 year old Firefox feature request fixed

#63
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it a human closing it or a bot? If you run an open source project there's a natural tendency to install a bot to auto-close all of the issues which people open because they didn't read the docs, want you to do free consulting for their business, have an irreproducible bug report, etc. and since most projects are short on labor that makes it somewhat inevitable that someone will enable the bot first and never get a…

A bot, but > someone will enable the bot first and never get around to configuring it to, for example, not close an issue tagged as verified. I don't understand this part. Aside from the fact that it's trivial to exclude certain tags (it's the same config file, and it's in the first example they give), doing this effectively makes your issue tracker useless as an issue tracker . Why not completely disable the issue t…

Oh, I'm not saying it's great. What I'm saying is that the process often looks like this:

1. Release a project on GitHub

2. Get busy with other things / deluged in issues

3. “I don't have time for this. Let me install the auto-close bot!”

4. Issues get closed

5. [sometimes never] “I better configure the auto-close bot to only act on untriaged issues”

Re: 17 year old Firefox feature request fixed

#64
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait is Emacs lying about its age again?

Emacs was released in 1985. That's 36 years ago. Half of that is 18. What am I missing?

I was using Emacs in 1982, and it had been around for several years before that.

Re: 17 year old Firefox feature request fixed

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it? It's not like you're paying GitHub per open issue. I've literally had issues I filed that the maintainer verified as an actual bug be closed due to lack of activity. I can understand that an unpaid maintainer doesn't have the time or motivation to fix it, but closing issues you know are valid seems insane to me.

They meant Mozilla having revenue, not GitHub.

So did the person you're replying to.

Re: 17 year old Firefox feature request fixed

#66
post #45

One of the most voted for issues is closed WONTFIX: single click selects all in address bar and search box. I use Firefox exclusively and this is the single most annoying change they made for no apparent reason. So annoying. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1621570 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?votes=133

This change was introduced at the same time when google.amp was introduced.

Now both firefox and chrome dont allow you to change the adress easily to manually remove amp.

I wonder if some Firefox developer was bribed

Re: 17 year old Firefox feature request fixed

#67
post #45

One of the most voted for issues is closed WONTFIX: single click selects all in address bar and search box. I use Firefox exclusively and this is the single most annoying change they made for no apparent reason. So annoying. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1621570 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?votes=133

I just laughed when I saw your comment, and the bugzilla links are styled as "visted" (i.e. gray instead of black.) I hate that behavior. When I click in the address bar, it's because I want to edit the URL. If I want to go somewhere else, I'll open a new tab, or use a bookmark, or click a link on a page. In the rare case that I want to type a whole new URL, but keep the same tab, I can easily triple-click or [Cmd]+A…

That's interesting. In my case, I hardly edit urls manually in the address bar. Usually I end up on a site either by clicking on links or copying and pasting a whole url from elsewhere. So, when I click on the address bar it's almost always to copy that url. Exception may be if you are front end dev testing different paths on the browser in which case editing in the address bar could be common.

Re: 17 year old Firefox feature request fixed

#69
post #45

One of the most voted for issues is closed WONTFIX: single click selects all in address bar and search box. I use Firefox exclusively and this is the single most annoying change they made for no apparent reason. So annoying. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1621570 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?votes=133

I just laughed when I saw your comment, and the bugzilla links are styled as "visted" (i.e. gray instead of black.) I hate that behavior. When I click in the address bar, it's because I want to edit the URL. If I want to go somewhere else, I'll open a new tab, or use a bookmark, or click a link on a page. In the rare case that I want to type a whole new URL, but keep the same tab, I can easily triple-click or [Cmd]+A…

Don't forget F6!

Re: 17 year old Firefox feature request fixed

#70
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait is Emacs lying about its age again?

Emacs was released in 1985. That's 36 years ago. Half of that is 18. What am I missing?

I think GNU Emacs was released in 1985, but Emacs existed before that. Similar to vim and vi relationship.

In fact, Emacs was first implemented as a plugin (a set of macros in the language of the time) for a now forgotten editor called Teco, which was one of the first, if not the first, programmable editor ever.

Post reply on HN