Re: Proposal Round 2: Drop active support of Windows 2000, Windows XP (no service pack) and Windows XP SP1
Robert Strong
the installer so if we ever end up in a situation where Firefox or any
other app no longer works on any of the unsupported platforms we can
easily inform the user prior to performing the installation. Bug filed
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=488585
Robert
On 4/15/2009 3:02 PM, Mike Connor wrote:
> See the previous thread for the story so far:
> http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/browse_thread/thread/67ddcaa5c897a58b#
>
>
> What seems to be a reasonable step is to declare that Windows XP SP2
> is the lowest supported version of Windows. Older versions will not
> be blocked from working based on current plans, but are considered
> unsupported.
>
> What Unsupported Means:
>
> * No tinderbox coverage
> * No QA coverage
> * No unit test or talos performance coverage
> * Bugs only affecting these platforms will not be considered as
> blocking any release 1.9.2 or later.
> ** We will accept fixes from interested parties that do not compromise
> supported OS versions.
>
> Please note that there may be future architectural changes (i.e.
> process separation was brought up) which would make preserving any
> compatibility impractical on these platforms. We will cross that
> bridge when we come to it.
>
> -- Mike
> _______________________________________________
> dev-planning mailing list
> dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Michael Kohler
Robert Strong wrote:
> I fully support this new proposal. I suggest that strings are added to
> the installer so if we ever end up in a situation where Firefox or any
> other app no longer works on any of the unsupported platforms we can
> easily inform the user prior to performing the installation. Bug filed
>
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=488585
That's a nice idea. *CC*
Samuel Sidler
> What seems to be a reasonable step is to declare that Windows XP SP2
> is the lowest supported version of Windows. Older versions will not
> be blocked from working based on current plans, but are considered
> unsupported.
>
> What Unsupported Means:
>
> * No tinderbox coverage
> * No QA coverage
> * No unit test or talos performance coverage
> * Bugs only affecting these platforms will not be considered as
> blocking any release 1.9.2 or later.
> ** We will accept fixes from interested parties that do not
> compromise supported OS versions.
This all sounds good to me.
-Sam
Danishka Navin
> See the previous thread for the story so far:
> http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/browse_thread/thread/67ddcaa5c897a58b#
>
> What seems to be a reasonable step is to declare that Windows XP SP2 is the
> lowest supported version of Windows. Older versions will not be blocked
> from working based on current plans, but are considered unsupported.
>
> What Unsupported Means:
>
> * No tinderbox coverage
> * No QA coverage
> * No unit test or talos performance coverage
> * Bugs only affecting these platforms will not be considered as blocking
> any release 1.9.2 or later.
> ** We will accept fixes from interested parties that do not compromise
> supported OS versions.
>
> Please note that there may be future architectural changes (i.e. process
> separation was brought up) which would make preserving any compatibility
> impractical on these platforms. We will cross that bridge when we come to
> it.
>
> -- Mike
Hi Mike,
sorry, this might be OT
Do you planning to do the same on Linux builds ?
--
Danishka Navin
http://danishkanavin.blogspot.com (use Sinhala Unicode fonts)
Nelson Bolyard
+1
SP2 was a big win over SP1, but SP3 wasn't compelling, and lots of people
just didn't bother with it and are still on SP2. Plus there were reports of
incompatibility with SP3. So, I think we need to support SP2 as long as
we support XP. Hopefully MS will come out with something better than Vista
(not such an incredible hog) before we drop XP support.