Is something planned for 2.0?

[al_9x]

There doesn't seem to be anything in it now to warrant a major version bump. Weren't there big plans?

[therube]

Have Display the release notes on updates disabled ?
That's how I found out, from the "release notes".
I'd assume that other then pulling some legacy code from 2.0, there isn't any new functionality there or enabled - yet.

(Though I'm sure you looked through the source. I must say, you are one bug finding maven .)

[Giorgio Maone]

@al_9x:
many "big plans" actually derailed because of your nitpickings about icons and placeholders

Jokes aside, in more than 5 years of development NoScript has seen so many new (and groundbreaking) features associated with minor release numbers that "warrant a major version bump" doesn't make much sense per se.

However the "biggest" of the plans, i.e. fine-grained permissions or at least a mean to selectively decide what kind of content you want to keep blocked on trusted sites, is top priority at this moment, and will surely come before 2.1.

But the main reason because we're starting a 2.0.x serie now is that big and possibly devastating changes are coming in the browser (out-of-process content viewers is the scariest), and we need as much agility as possible to tackle them. So it really was time to drop the bulk of the legacy baggage and declare Firefox 2.0 support (at least, but I'm considering Firefox 3.0 as well) end of life in a "round" version like 1.10, starting the "fresh and free" development with 2.0xxx.

[al_9x]

@al_9x:
many "big plans" actually derailed because of your nitpickings about icons and placeholders

Jokes aside,

I guess you took it more like "where is the stuff you promised?" I intended something closer to "why bump the major version now, before the changes planned for it?" and was wondering if perhaps you were planning to introduce something big between 2.0rc2 and 2.0.

So it really was time to drop the bulk of the legacy baggage and declare Firefox 2.0 support (at least, but I'm considering Firefox 3.0 as well) end of life in a "round" version like 1.10, starting the "fresh and free" development with 2.0xxx

In my experience, the hurdles of going from 3 to 3.5 or 3.6 are significantly lower (to the point of non-existent) than from 2 to 3.

[dhouwn]

There doesn't seem to be anything in it now to warrant a major version bump.

The changes between 1.0.0 and 2.0.0 don't warrant a big bump?!
You are joking, right?

[Giorgio Maone]

In my experience, the hurdles of going from 3 to 3.5 or 3.6 are significantly lower (to the point of non-existent) than from 2 to 3.

Do you mean for users or from a development standpoint?
In other words, do you endorse dropping 3.0 support as well or the opposite?

[al_9x]

In my experience, the hurdles of going from 3 to 3.5 or 3.6 are significantly lower (to the point of non-existent) than from 2 to 3.

Do you mean for users or from a development standpoint?

From the user perspective.

In other words, do you endorse dropping 3.0 support as well or the opposite?

The former (dropping 3.0).