-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 347
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Waterfox Current initially can not use (but can downgrade, or import from) a profile that was used by a superior build of Waterfox Current #1241
Comments
Here's a screen recording of the ugly workaround. (I just realised, there's an alternative workaround that's sane, but I'll go ahead and share what's below as an example of an approach that's bad; likely to be troublesome.) Attention to the command lines:
In a nutshell:
|
96d1f39
So that was the change - I’ll see if I can reproduce that bug; I have no
idea why the builds would do that - there were no changes in the toolkit
code for this. Thanks!
…On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 21:43, Graham Perrin ***@***.***> wrote:
From https://old.reddit.com/comments/dnmecu/-/f5fbxyk/:
As far as I know:
- for as long as Waterfox Current will be based on Firefox ESR 68, it
should be possible for an inferior version e.g. 2019.10
(20191022131008) to use a profile that was touched by a superior
version
*Logically* – given (a) the Waterfox Current user base; (b) soft launch
scenarios; and so on – it *should* be possible. Desirable, sooner or
later.
Actually it's not (or not yet) possible.
A fluffy example:
- Waterfox Current 2019.10 (20191015121210) can not use a profile that
was used by Waterfox Current 2019.10 (20191023104314).
– "fluffy" because I can think of no reason for *anyone* to prefer
20191015121210.
Inherent protection; the Mozilla code base. A sane base, but it's likely
to be perceived as troublesome in a future Waterfox scenario, so it's worth
raising this issue (meta, tracking: #538
<#538>) – maybe to be closed
WONTFIX, but let's have a record.
With Waterfox Current alone, there is no easy workaround.
------------------------------
A workaround does exist, however it's as *ugly* (potentially troublesome)
as it is *easy* so I'll make it a separate comment, to be voted down.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1241>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABECQWBLPA3NNGDFUGHKRA3QQ5MGXANCNFSM4JGAPT3A>
.
|
Reopening this as a documentation issue – #582 – I imagine a single-sentence, single-paragraph answer amongst FAQ with a link to a separate page about:
@MrAlex94 probably not a bug. Gut feeling: let's not attempt to override the protection. |
@MrAlex94 PS (no rush) if you can remove the quoted text from your comment, doing so will probably cease the link with bug tracking issue |
For readers who may be unfamiliar with this approach to protection: two screenshots borrowed from https://www.reddit.com/comments/dnmecu/-/f5gl7r0/?context=1. In this case (without showing any build ID):
In as few words as possible:
|
@grahamperrin Did you try just starting Waterfox Current with |
@laniakea64 even better! Thanks. Sorry I didn't think to check available options. https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Mozilla/Command_Line_Options#User_Profile Confirmed: the option is effective. |
Reopening solely for documentation purposes. Not a bug. #1241 (comment) above is expanded to three bullet points. |
From https://old.reddit.com/comments/dnmecu/-/f5fbxyk/:
Logically – given (a) the Waterfox Current user base; (b) soft launch scenarios; and so on – it should be possible. Desirable, sooner or later.
Actually it's not (or not yet) possible.
A fluffy example:
2019.10 (20191015121210)
can not use a profile that was used by Waterfox Current2019.10 (20191023104314)
.– "fluffy" because I can think of no reason for anyone to prefer
20191015121210
.Inherent protection; the Mozilla code base. A sane base, but it's likely to be perceived as troublesome in a future Waterfox scenario, so it's worth raising this issue (meta, tracking:
#538
) – maybe to be closedWONTFIX
, but let's have a record.With Waterfox Current alone, there is no easy workaround.False! Sorry. See #1241 (comment) below.A workaround does exist, however it's as ugly (potentially troublesome) as it is easy so I'll make it a separate comment, to be voted down.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: