So Fedor2's patches could be merged into UXP/PaleMoon/whatever or available on a different branch of a separate build for XP in the Pale Moon Git repo.

Pale Moon used to have a separate XP build for Atom processors. It's like Pale Moon developers were afraid of their browser known to be available for XP. The requirement for rebranding also seems excessive. If I'm correct, it seems illogical to refuse authorizing 3rd builds for XP because if we regard it as a different platform, then platform-specific issues should be dealt with by the maintainers (Fedor2 and roytam1). html5 video).įor instance, what if there is an issue with CentOS 6's old kernel which is only patched by Red Hat and isn't available on other systems outside the RHEL world? Should it be fixed by Pale Moon core devs? Or should it be fixed by László Kovács, the maintainer for CentOS 6? I would think that it would be the task for the maintainer to provide a fix.

This will prevent intermixing XP specific issues with our own development, and prevent confusion about what is supported and what isn't (e.g.

Pale moon browser windows xp