Version between b5 and rc1?

[Alex Polvi]

Hi,

What are we going to call the nightly after beta 5? 3.0rc1pre ?

Just curious,

-Alex

[John J Barton]

3.0b6pre ? ;-)

[Edward Hume]

It is an important question. As an example, I am prepping my themes
for the next fx version, and I would like to know whether to put
3.0b6pre or 3.0rc1pre as maxversion. That way I'll be ready to post
them when AMO increments the appversion.

Ed

> _______________________________________________
> dev-planning mailing list
> dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
>

[Mike Shaver]

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Alex Polvi <po...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> What are we going to call the nightly after beta 5? 3.0rc1pre ?

I would expect it to be called 3.0pre; rc1 should call itself 3.0,
since we label something RC1 on the expectation that it is releasable
barring surprising findings.

Mike

[Reed Loden]

3.0.0pre, I hope you mean. :)

~reed

--
Reed Loden - <re...@reedloden.com>

[Sheppy]

On Mar 21, 11:09 pm, Reed Loden <r...@reedloden.com> wrote:

> 3.0.0pre, I hope you mean. :)

So many zeroes! Oh, the humanity! :)

Eric Shepherd
Developer Documentation Lead
Mozilla Corporation

[Mike Beltzner]

Reed Loden wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:06:09 -0400
> "Mike Shaver" <mike....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Alex Polvi <po...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>> What are we going to call the nightly after beta 5? 3.0rc1pre ?
>> I would expect it to be called 3.0pre; rc1 should call itself 3.0,
>> since we label something RC1 on the expectation that it is releasable
>> barring surprising findings.
>

> 3.0.0pre, I hope you mean. :)

Actually, I think he meant 3.0pre. IIRC, the first versions are just ".0"

cheers,
mike

[Reed Loden]

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 01:04:38 -0400
Mike Beltzner <belt...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> Actually, I think he meant 3.0pre. IIRC, the first versions are just
> ".0"

Well, Firefox 2 used "2.0", but Thunderbird 2 used "2.0.0.0", which I
believe is actually the correct thing to do here (use "3.0.0").

[Justin Dolske]

Reed Loden wrote:

>> Actually, I think he meant 3.0pre. IIRC, the first versions are just
>> ".0"
>
> Well, Firefox 2 used "2.0", but Thunderbird 2 used "2.0.0.0", which I
> believe is actually the correct thing to do here (use "3.0.0").

I don't think the "3" vs "3.0.0" distinction is a big deal. But, I
suppose since most of the world is familiar with the 1.5.0.x and 2.0.0.x
formats, it would be good to use "3.0.0" anywhere "3.0.1" would be used
(for the first update)... That's an unambiguous clue that the first
update will not be "3.0.0.1".

Justin

[Mike Connor]

We've declared it publicly in multiple places, afaik...

-- Mike

[Mike Beltzner]

Justin Dolske wrote:
>> Well, Firefox 2 used "2.0", but Thunderbird 2 used "2.0.0.0", which I
>> believe is actually the correct thing to do here (use "3.0.0").
>
> I don't think the "3" vs "3.0.0" distinction is a big deal. But, I

If there's no effect on extension compat, then I'd rather the version
number be as simple as possible, and thus "3". Otherwise "3.0.0".

cheers,
mike

[Edward Hume]

As an add-on developer, I would like to know today what the
designation will be tomorrow when you lock fx down. What will AMO be
designating here -

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pages/appversions

as the next accepted appversion?

I have 15 themes, and they all support 3b4. I want the 3b5-compatible
versions up on AMO in time for the 3b5 release. I don't want to be
rushing at the last minute.

So, whoever has the authority on these things, please let us know.

Thanks

Ed

On 3/23/08, Mike Beltzner <belt...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> Justin Dolske wrote:
> >> Well, Firefox 2 used "2.0", but Thunderbird 2 used "2.0.0.0", which I
> >> believe is actually the correct thing to do here (use "3.0.0").
> >
> > I don't think the "3" vs "3.0.0" distinction is a big deal. But, I
>
>

> If there's no effect on extension compat, then I'd rather the version
> number be as simple as possible, and thus "3". Otherwise "3.0.0".
>
> cheers,
>
> mike
>

[Reed Loden]

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 10:30:20 -0400
Mike Beltzner <belt...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> If there's no effect on extension compat, then I'd rather the version
> number be as simple as possible, and thus "3". Otherwise "3.0.0".

"3" will break things, including mconnor's current help viewer patch,
some www.mozilla.com website regexps, and probably more things that
expect at least one period in the version number.

[Dave Townsend]

Reed Loden wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 10:30:20 -0400
> Mike Beltzner<belt...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
>> If there's no effect on extension compat, then I'd rather the version
>> number be as simple as possible, and thus "3". Otherwise "3.0.0".
>
> "3" will break things, including mconnor's current help viewer patch,
> some www.mozilla.com website regexps, and probably more things that
> expect at least one period in the version number.

Then really, we should fix those things.

[Dave Townsend]

I've filed a bug to get the 3.0b5 and 3.0pre values allowed as
maxVersions on AMO as soon as possible so you can sort out your add-ons
as appropriate for b5 and the coming nightlies. Once RC1 is practically
ready for release we can add 3.0.* as a valid maxVersion I suspect.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=424810

Dave

[Boris Zbarsky]

Dave Townsend wrote:
> Then really, we should fix those things.

How do you propose to "fix" browser-sniffing code that's out there, exactly?

-Boris

[John O'Duinn]

+1 to everything Justin said.

My two cents
tc
John.