As we continue in the Firefox 4 Beta development cycle, we wanted to send out a note to get everyone on the same page when publicly referring to the latest beta release.
In the past, we have referred to our beta updates numerically; for example, beta 1, beta 2, or beta 3. We agree that this is a very helpful way to keep track of specific releases, especially within engineering, and we should continue to do so.
Publicly, however, we think its best to start moving away from associating a number to a particular release. As of now, we have 7 scheduled Betas, and there is a possibility that we may need to have more. Potentially having to call out Firefox 4 Beta 9 in tweets, blogs, videos or social media could start to make it look like we've had an inefficient development cycle, and that--as well all know--couldn't be farther from the truth.
From now on, it would be great to refer to Firefox 4 Beta without the release number, referring instead to release as the "latest beta update" or the "newest beta release". Doing so would go a long way to make sure we prevent negative news stories about the length of the development cycle as we prepare for RCs and finally, GA.
To be clear, we aren't going to be super strict on this or monitor how people are referring to the beta--far from it! We just wanted to send a general note out so that everyone is aware of what we're trying to do and why, hopefully ensuring that we have the most effective messaging in the market that we can.
Thanks for all your help--we're looking forward to an awesome Firefox 4!
Cheers,
Laura
PS Also, don't forget to use #Fx4 or #fx4beta when tweeting about any of the coming beta releases!
-- Laura Mesa Mozilla Product Marketing Manager lm...@mozilla.com 650-903-0800 ext 329
> As we continue in the Firefox 4 Beta development cycle, we wanted to > send out a note to get everyone on the same page when publicly referring > to the latest beta release.
> In the past, we have referred to our beta updates numerically; for > example, beta 1, beta 2, or beta 3. We agree that this is a very helpful > way to keep track of specific releases, especially within engineering, > and we should continue to do so.
> Publicly, however, we think its best to start moving away from > associating a number to a particular release. As of now, we have 7 > scheduled Betas, and there is a possibility that we may need to have > more. Potentially having to call out Firefox 4 Beta 9 in tweets, blogs, > videos or social media could start to make it look like we've had an > inefficient development cycle, and that--as well all know--couldn't be > farther from the truth.
The truth here is that the Beta 1-5 were what the community calls 'alpha' releases. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle --- "Beta" is the software development phase following alpha, named after the Greek letter beta. It generally begins when the software is feature complete. --- So the reason you have to go to beta 9 is that you started counting betas too soon.
I understand that the Firefox team wants feedback from a larger class of users early in the development. You have legitimate reasons for using a different software release life cycle. One reasonable solution is to introduce a new cycle to the community: a : early development b : design feedback c : feature freeze So change b5 to c1 then do that tweet thing about your innovation here.
> From now on, it would be great to refer to Firefox 4 Beta without the > release number, referring instead to release as the "latest beta update" > or the "newest beta release". Doing so would go a long way to make sure > we prevent negative news stories about the length of the development > cycle as we prepare for RCs and finally, GA.
Deliberately obscuring information vital to how users communicate about problems in Firefox cannot possibly make your product better.
> The truth here is that the Beta 1-5 were what the community calls > 'alpha' releases. See for example > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle > --- > "Beta" is the software development phase following alpha, named after > the Greek letter beta. It generally begins when the software is feature > complete. > --- > So the reason you have to go to beta 9 is that you started counting > betas too soon.
It *generally* begins when it's feature complete. That doesn't mean it can only begin then. We seem to fit all the criteria listed there for "beta". Additionally, I don't think any browser vendor is feature complete when it ships a beta.
> Deliberately obscuring information vital to how users communicate about > problems in Firefox cannot possibly make your product better.
I don't see how this is obscuring. Not sure most people care about the number other than knowing that they are on the latest version. Care to elaborate?
Laura's message is more talking about how to communicate about these changes to the "wider public", meaning press, tweets, etc. It's mostly about image and messaging, but those are important parts of a release.
If you're unlikely to be tweeting, or to have your blog posts read by the mainstream press or users, you don't need to spend a lot of time thinking about this. Within our development and testing community we'll still be referring to milestones by their beta version numbers.
At the same time, when promoting the beta to your friends, we'd like (as Laura says) for people to think about the beta as an ongoing program which will see their browser updated many times as we iterate towards success!
Shawn Wilsher wrote: > On 8/18/2010 12:10 AM, johnjbarton wrote: ... >> Deliberately obscuring information vital to how users communicate about >> problems in Firefox cannot possibly make your product better. > I don't see how this is obscuring. Not sure most people care about the > number other than knowing that they are on the latest version. Care to > elaborate?
But design or development releases are not about "most people" or about the "latest version". These releases exist specifically for evaluating and testing the product. These releases change dramatically, they are really different. All communications about issues in the evaluation and testing need to include specific reference to the version. Otherwise we cannot tell whether new issues are regressions or just users on an older version. The only practical response to a bug report or question about the "latest" version is to ask for the version number so you can give an accurate answer.
> As we continue in the Firefox 4 Beta development cycle, we wanted to > send out a note to get everyone on the same page when publicly > referring to the latest beta release.
> In the past, we have referred to our beta updates numerically; for > example, beta 1, beta 2, or beta 3. We agree that this is a very > helpful way to keep track of specific releases, especially within > engineering, and we should continue to do so.
> Publicly, however, we think its best to start moving away from > associating a number to a particular release. As of now, we have 7 > scheduled Betas, and there is a possibility that we may need to have > more. Potentially having to call out Firefox 4 Beta 9 in tweets, > blogs, videos or social media could start to make it look like we've > had an inefficient development cycle, and that--as well all > know--couldn't be farther from the truth.
> From now on, it would be great to refer to Firefox 4 Beta without the > release number, referring instead to release as the "latest beta > update" or the "newest beta release". Doing so would go a long way > to make sure we prevent negative news stories about the length of the > development cycle as we prepare for RCs and finally, GA.
> To be clear, we aren't going to be super strict on this or monitor > how people are referring to the beta--far from it! We just wanted to > send a general note out so that everyone is aware of what we're > trying to do and why, hopefully ensuring that we have the most > effective messaging in the market that we can.
> Thanks for all your help--we're looking forward to an awesome Firefox > 4!
> Cheers,
> Laura
> PS Also, don't forget to use #Fx4 or #fx4beta when tweeting about any > of the coming beta releases!
Anyone who knows what a beta release is will conclude quite the opposite - that progress is moving forward at a nice clip. Anyone who doesn't know what a beta release is won't care and will likely wait until the update notice appears when they load FF or TB.
There is a deeper issue here that, in my opinion, ought to be an open conversation. The conclusion that people will interpret successive beta releases as negative was supported by the same amount of data and evidence as my conclusion that they will be received positively or neutrally - no evidence or data at all. What was the basis for drawing such a conclusion? It sounds like a SWAG, but, there might be evidence or data behind the statement. None was offered.
I am developing a perception that a good deal of decision making is following this path, i.e., "well, it sounds like it makes sense, so let's run with it". It appears to me that TB 3.x has been a long string of "makes sense, let's run with it" decisions without a lot of critical thinking and analysis, and very little anticipation of how it will work in the field.
My confidence in TB has been considerably shaken with the 3.x release (I acknowledge that perception is arguable). This "like it, run with it" level of thinking (my interpretation, I admit, and I take ownership for my conclusions) does not bode well for TB or FF.
I mean none of this personally nor do I wish or intend to diminish persons or efforts. I'm not naive about the effort it takes to create and maintain direction and focus with a group of people who are volunteers and who have desires and hopes of their own. I know what it is like to have a lot of energy around an idea that is out of sync with the direction in which the beast is expected to flow.
An effective exercise for gaining insight is to ask a number of your best developers to sequester themselves and spec out a product that would kill TB in the minds of its current users and give them cause to adopt the new product en-mass. This is the magnitude of shift that ought to take place. It would energize people around a very clearly articulated end result, something that I think has died, or is quite ill.
> The conclusion that people will interpret successive beta > releases as negative was supported by the same amount of data and > evidence as my conclusion that they will be received positively or > neutrally - no evidence or data at all.
Actually, it's based on previous experience, where the technical press has often referred to the number of betas as a proxy for the ability for an organization to ship software on schedule. We wish it were not so, truly.
> am developing a perception that a good deal of decision making is > following this path, i.e., "well, it sounds like it makes sense, so > let's run with it"
I am, of course, sorry that you feel this way. Happily, all of our decision making and discussion takes place in open fora like this, so you can base such conclusions on evidence, and see the evidence of us bringing data to bear when making decisions. When it is available and interpretable, we definitely do so. When it isn't, we try to get it. When we can't get hard data, we use secondary sources, or yes, sometimes (though rarely) make a call. Decision making is hard, let's go shopping.
The rest of your message was about Thunderbird, and not really on topic.
> As we continue in the Firefox 4 Beta development cycle, we wanted to > send out a note to get everyone on the same page when publicly referring > to the latest beta release.
> In the past, we have referred to our beta updates numerically; for > example, beta 1, beta 2, or beta 3. We agree that this is a very helpful > way to keep track of specific releases, especially within engineering, > and we should continue to do so.
> Publicly, however, we think its best to start moving away from > associating a number to a particular release. As of now, we have 7 > scheduled Betas, and there is a possibility that we may need to have > more. Potentially having to call out Firefox 4 Beta 9 in tweets, blogs, > videos or social media could start to make it look like we've had an > inefficient development cycle, and that--as well all know--couldn't be > farther from the truth.
> From now on, it would be great to refer to Firefox 4 Beta without the > release number, referring instead to release as the "latest beta update" > or the "newest beta release". Doing so would go a long way to make sure > we prevent negative news stories about the length of the development > cycle as we prepare for RCs and finally, GA.
> To be clear, we aren't going to be super strict on this or monitor how > people are referring to the beta--far from it! We just wanted to send a > general note out so that everyone is aware of what we're trying to do > and why, hopefully ensuring that we have the most effective messaging in > the market that we can.
> Thanks for all your help--we're looking forward to an awesome Firefox 4!
> Cheers,
> Laura
> PS Also, don't forget to use #Fx4 or #fx4beta when tweeting about any of > the coming beta releases!
Will only contribute to confusion. Look at the method used by Google Chrome for their beta development. Clear, concise, and they don't care if people know they have 39 versions of this beta iteration.
> On 8/18/2010 12:10 AM, johnjbarton wrote: >> The truth here is that the Beta 1-5 were what the community calls >> 'alpha' releases. See for example >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle >> --- >> "Beta" is the software development phase following alpha, named after >> the Greek letter beta. It generally begins when the software is feature >> complete. >> --- >> So the reason you have to go to beta 9 is that you started counting >> betas too soon. > It *generally* begins when it's feature complete. That doesn't mean it > can only begin then. We seem to fit all the criteria listed there for > "beta". Additionally, I don't think any browser vendor is feature > complete when it ships a beta.
>> Deliberately obscuring information vital to how users communicate about >> problems in Firefox cannot possibly make your product better. > I don't see how this is obscuring. Not sure most people care about the > number other than knowing that they are on the latest version. Care to > elaborate?
> Cheers,
> Shawn
Sure makes it easier to make sure we are all talking about the same, or different, versions, though. The latest beta is non-specific, and potentially very confusing.
> Shawn Wilsher wrote: >> On 8/18/2010 12:10 AM, johnjbarton wrote: > ... >>> Deliberately obscuring information vital to how users communicate about >>> problems in Firefox cannot possibly make your product better. >> I don't see how this is obscuring. Not sure most people care about the >> number other than knowing that they are on the latest version. Care to >> elaborate?
> But design or development releases are not about "most people" or about > the "latest version". These releases exist specifically for evaluating > and testing the product. These releases change dramatically, they are > really different. All communications about issues in the evaluation and > testing need to include specific reference to the version. Otherwise we > cannot tell whether new issues are regressions or just users on an older > version. The only practical response to a bug report or question about > the "latest" version is to ask for the version number so you can give an > accurate answer.
> Please consider my suggestion.
> jjb
I hope, but don't KNOW, that the 'feedback' button retrieves the actual version/build number from the software, and attaches it to the response. If not, it certainly SHOULD. At least then the developers will know explicitly what software has the specified problem. As for user support issues, these messages often don't include the necessary information.
>> The conclusion that people will interpret successive beta >> releases as negative was supported by the same amount of data and >> evidence as my conclusion that they will be received positively or >> neutrally - no evidence or data at all.
> Actually, it's based on previous experience, where the technical press has often referred to the number of betas as a proxy for the ability for an organization to ship software on schedule. We wish it were not so, truly.
>> am developing a perception that a good deal of decision making is >> following this path, i.e., "well, it sounds like it makes sense, so >> let's run with it"
> I am, of course, sorry that you feel this way. Happily, all of our decision making and discussion takes place in open fora like this, so you can base such conclusions on evidence, and see the evidence of us bringing data to bear when making decisions. When it is available and interpretable, we definitely do so. When it isn't, we try to get it. When we can't get hard data, we use secondary sources, or yes, sometimes (though rarely) make a call. Decision making is hard, let's go shopping.
> The rest of your message was about Thunderbird, and not really on topic.
> cheers, > mike
I agree that perception is very important, but then so is accurate communication between developers and those of us who expose ourselves to beta versions of various software. I have been doing that since about 1984, so I have so many scars that I rarely feel much pain when something just doesn't work, or I find my favorite add-on just won't work with this or that version. I really don't care WHAT a version is called in the media, or someone's tweet, or blog, or on Facebook, as long as it doesn't interrupt the flow of accurate information between beta testers and developers. One caution, it is often easy to over think things like this.
> I agree that perception is very important, but then so is accurate communication between developers and those of us who expose ourselves to beta versions of various software. I have been doing that since about
As I, and Laura, have stated pretty clearly, this isn't going to change the way that the development community talks amongst itself about the beta versions. We're talking specifically about:
- tweets/facebook wall comments/buzzes advertising features or technology, - posts written in mainstream/public places (Mozilla Hacks, Mozilla Newsletter, etc)
That's it. Everyone else can continue to do as they wish. And indeed, anyone can always do what they wish. This was simply a request from the people responsible for messaging, sharing the fact that the messaging they will be doing will use terms like "next beta refresh", etc, and the rationale behind that.
Everyone can stop talking about this now, I'm pretty sure. I'm honestly thrilled that it's the most alarming or interesting part of your day.
> On 8/18/2010 1:27 PM, John J Barton wrote: >> Shawn Wilsher wrote: >>> On 8/18/2010 12:10 AM, johnjbarton wrote: >> ... >>>> Deliberately obscuring information vital to how users communicate about >>>> problems in Firefox cannot possibly make your product better. >>> I don't see how this is obscuring. Not sure most people care about the >>> number other than knowing that they are on the latest version. Care to >>> elaborate?
>> But design or development releases are not about "most people" or about >> the "latest version". These releases exist specifically for evaluating >> and testing the product. These releases change dramatically, they are >> really different. All communications about issues in the evaluation and >> testing need to include specific reference to the version. Otherwise we >> cannot tell whether new issues are regressions or just users on an older >> version. The only practical response to a bug report or question about >> the "latest" version is to ask for the version number so you can give an >> accurate answer.
>> Please consider my suggestion.
>> jjb
> I hope, but don't KNOW, that the 'feedback' button retrieves the actual > version/build number from the software, and attaches it to the response. > If not, it certainly SHOULD. At least then the developers will know > explicitly what software has the specified problem. As for user support > issues, these messages often don't include the necessary information.
Ron, you are correct on both counts. We get it automatically when we can and when we can't and have to ask for it, we almost always want more information than just the beta number.
Both the user feedback system and the support system have other means of gathering this information that are far more reliable than our public messaging around beta names. Our feedback system reports the build info and support requests include browser user agent info automatically. When that's not sufficient, support can ask for about:support details. Oh, and bugzilla gets UA info too.
Our public messaging does nearly nothing to help feedback and support. and unless you actually work regularly with our support effort or our feedback system, please don't assert that it does.
> Will only contribute to confusion. Look at the method used by Google > Chrome for their beta development. Clear, concise, and they don't care > if people know they have 39 versions of this beta iteration.
I've been testing the developer channel and the beta channel as long as Chrome's had them and for the last while I've also been testing the Canary channel. No one uses numbers other than the primary upcoming version and the channel (dev, beta, canary) when talking about all of these. I also follow a lot of bug report that comes in to Chromium and they are all filed with a build ID or are requested to add specific build IDs in early comments (like in the case they used a different browser to file the report.)
I never know which Canary build or which beta build I'm on with Chrome - ever, until I open up the About Google Chrome dialog and see that I'm on 6.0.496.0 canary build, for example. Almost no one uses the full "Chrome 6.0.496 canary build" or "Chrome 6.0.495 dev" when talking about these versions in blogs or tech press.
It's just "Chrome 5 Beta" or "Today's Chrome Dev build" or "the latest Chrome Canary build"
> On 8/18/2010 4:50 PM, Ron Hunter wrote: >> On 8/18/2010 12:49 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
>>> I don't see how this is obscuring. Not sure most people care about the >>> number other than knowing that they are on the latest version. Care to >>> elaborate?
>>> Cheers,
>>> Shawn
>> Sure makes it easier to make sure we are all talking about the same, or >> different, versions, though. The latest beta is non-specific, and >> potentially very confusing.
> Ron, the "we" in your comment isn't a problem. "We" will all call it > beta 4 when we're talking in our various forums. And for the rest of the > world, like the blogs and tech press, I doubt we'll have any serious > confusion here given the context of most of that content.
> - A
I agree. Since I don't do blogs, and take tech press with a whole barrel of salt, I don't have any comments to them. I guess I am safe from causing confusion, of being confused about the exact version/build. I do feel that the term 'latest beta' is rather subject to mislead, given that publication delays are usually going to make their version rather old, even in these days of electronic communications.
> On 8/18/2010 12:10 AM, johnjbarton wrote: >> The truth here is that the Beta 1-5 were what the community calls >> 'alpha' releases. See for example >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle >> --- >> "Beta" is the software development phase following alpha, named after >> the Greek letter beta. It generally begins when the software is feature >> complete. >> --- >> So the reason you have to go to beta 9 is that you started counting >> betas too soon. > It *generally* begins when it's feature complete. That doesn't mean it > can only begin then. We seem to fit all the criteria listed there for > "beta". Additionally, I don't think any browser vendor is feature > complete when it ships a beta.
>> Deliberately obscuring information vital to how users communicate about >> problems in Firefox cannot possibly make your product better. > I don't see how this is obscuring. Not sure most people care about the > number other than knowing that they are on the latest version. Care to > elaborate?
If I encounter a regression bug, I would think the developers would like to know that the regression occurred somewhere between Beta 5 and Beta 8 even if the current one is Beta 11.
> On 8/18/10 10:49 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote: > > On 8/18/2010 12:10 AM, johnjbarton wrote: > >> The truth here is that the Beta 1-5 were what the community calls > >> 'alpha' releases. See for example > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle > >> --- > >> "Beta" is the software development phase following alpha, named after > >> the Greek letter beta. It generally begins when the software is feature > >> complete. > >> --- > >> So the reason you have to go to beta 9 is that you started counting > >> betas too soon. > > It *generally* begins when it's feature complete. That doesn't mean it > > can only begin then. We seem to fit all the criteria listed there for > > "beta". Additionally, I don't think any browser vendor is feature > > complete when it ships a beta.
> >> Deliberately obscuring information vital to how users communicate about > >> problems in Firefox cannot possibly make your product better. > > I don't see how this is obscuring. Not sure most people care about the > > number other than knowing that they are on the latest version. Care to > > elaborate?
> If I encounter a regression bug, I would think the developers would like > to know that the regression occurred somewhere between Beta 5 and Beta 8 > even if the current one is Beta 11.
Laura Mesa wrote: > To be clear, we aren't going to be super strict on this or monitor how > people are referring to the beta--far from it! We just wanted to send a > general note out so that everyone is aware of what we're trying to do > and why, hopefully ensuring that we have the most effective messaging in > the market that we can.
In Wikinews, names of all articles in a particular language are in the same namespace.
> Potentially having to call out Firefox 4 Beta 9 in tweets, blogs, > videos or social media could start to make it look like we've had an > inefficient development cycle, and that--as well all know--couldn't be > farther from the truth.
Maybe I'm just different, so take this with a grain of salt, but when I see different (pre-)releases called out with the same name and using workaround descriptions like "the latest beta", _then_ I start to think their release system is broken. When they call out "beta 15" I just tend to think "looks like they test for a very long time until they find they can release a final". ;-)
Robert Kaiser
-- Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible arguments that we as a community needs answers to. And most of the time, I even appreciate irony and fun! :)
> > Will only contribute to confusion. Look at the method used by Google > > Chrome for their beta development. Clear, concise, and they don't care > > if people know they have 39 versions of this beta iteration.
> I've been testing the developer channel and the beta channel as long as > Chrome's had them and for the last while I've also been testing the > Canary channel. No one uses numbers other than the primary upcoming > version and the channel (dev, beta, canary) when talking about all of > these. I also follow a lot of bug report that comes in to Chromium and > they are all filed with a build ID or are requested to add specific > build IDs in early comments (like in the case they used a different > browser to file the report.)
> I never know which Canary build or which beta build I'm on with Chrome - > ever, until I open up the About Google Chrome dialog and see that I'm on > 6.0.496.0 canary build, for example. Almost no one uses the full "Chrome > 6.0.496 canary build" or "Chrome 6.0.495 dev" when talking about these > versions in blogs or tech press.
> It's just "Chrome 5 Beta" or "Today's Chrome Dev build" or "the latest > Chrome Canary build"
> - A
To be fair, though, Chrome has that background update service, so pretty much everyone is on the "latest" Chrome build.
Robert Kaiser wrote: > Laura Mesa schrieb: >> Potentially having to call out Firefox 4 Beta 9 in tweets, blogs, >> videos or social media could start to make it look like we've had an >> inefficient development cycle, and that--as well all know--couldn't be >> farther from the truth.
> Maybe I'm just different, so take this with a grain of salt, but when I > see different (pre-)releases called out with the same name and using > workaround descriptions like "the latest beta", _then_ I start to think > their release system is broken. When they call out "beta 15" I just tend > to think "looks like they test for a very long time until they find they > can release a final". ;-)
> Robert Kaiser
Hey, Robert, haven't we had two SeaMonkey 2.1a2's??
O.K., these were only alpha's and were with-in a couple of days (if not sooner), but.......
> Hey, Robert, haven't we had two SeaMonkey 2.1a2's??
No. We had two candidate builds for it, but only one that was released and announced on websites, etc. Nobody would be happy if we didn't correct builds before we released them when we found errors that are not release-worthy (not even for an alpha or beta).
Robert Kaiser
-- Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible arguments that we as a community needs answers to. And most of the time, I even appreciate irony and fun! :)
Just wanted to address some of the concerns that my earlier email raised. We absolutely want to continue with rapid product development cycles and launching the best product we can -- when we're ready. I did not intend to imply that we should be hiding from the fact that we are shipping milestones for feedback frequently. I can see how the wording of my earlier email might have been misinterpreted and I apologize for that.
So far, our Beta has been very well received and we want to continue to focus the discussion on the features and the functionality in the product. We want to make sure that our users are aware that Firefox 4 Beta is awesome, no matter the version, and that they should download it and help us test. We were concerned that the numbering system might have gotten in the way of that message, but at the end of the day, our goal is to get people using the beta and excited about the final release.
> As we continue in the Firefox 4 Beta development cycle, we wanted to > send out a note to get everyone on the same page when publicly > referring to the latest beta release.
> In the past, we have referred to our beta updates numerically; for > example, beta 1, beta 2, or beta 3. We agree that this is a very > helpful way to keep track of specific releases, especially within > engineering, and we should continue to do so.
> Publicly, however, we think its best to start moving away from > associating a number to a particular release. As of now, we have 7 > scheduled Betas, and there is a possibility that we may need to have > more. Potentially having to call out Firefox 4 Beta 9 in tweets, > blogs, videos or social media could start to make it look like we've > had an inefficient development cycle, and that--as well all > know--couldn't be farther from the truth.
> From now on, it would be great to refer to Firefox 4 Beta without the > release number, referring instead to release as the "latest beta > update" or the "newest beta release". Doing so would go a long way to > make sure we prevent negative news stories about the length of the > development cycle as we prepare for RCs and finally, GA.
> To be clear, we aren't going to be super strict on this or monitor how > people are referring to the beta--far from it! We just wanted to send > a general note out so that everyone is aware of what we're trying to > do and why, hopefully ensuring that we have the most effective > messaging in the market that we can.
> Thanks for all your help--we're looking forward to an awesome Firefox 4!
> Cheers,
> Laura
> PS Also, don't forget to use #Fx4 or #fx4beta when tweeting about any > of the coming beta releases!
> -- > Laura Mesa > Mozilla Product Marketing Manager > lm...@mozilla.com > 650-903-0800 ext 329
-- Laura Mesa Mozilla Product Marketing Manager lm...@mozilla.com 650-903-0800 ext 329
> Perhaps a change of language to something like "Firefox 4 Preview x" would > be less confusing/demeaning to the product.
> (This is the same way that the Internet Explorer team refers to > pre-releases, for better or worse)
> -- James
This is exactly what I wanted to add.
Mozilla obviously needs to keep working -- and communicating -- with version numbers. Everyone does not use the feedback add-on, or does not update their Firefox beta. People should be able to report accurate feedback: "I have this problem with Firefox 4 [Beta/Preview/whatever you call it] number 12".
What follows is more targeted towards Laura Mesa:
I don't think releasing many "beta" sounds the product quality is bad. __It depends on your way on communicating on it__. Call them "preview release" and you look like a company which keeps in touch with its users. Isn't it marketing magic ;-) ?
Some products are better when they are mature: cheese, whiskey... -- well, the latter is probably not a good advertising idea for children.
IMHO you should be proud of your development cycle, and show it. Yes, I had understand you wanted to try to hide it like a shameful thing. Glad to read I was wrong.
> We want to make sure that our users are aware that Firefox 4 Beta is awesome, no matter the version, and that they should download it and help us test.
With all the respect I have for the quality assurance and development teams, a beta is not a complete product (that's why it's called beta). It may explode, open security breaches, and I would not recommend it to my relatives so they would not be disappointed if something goes wrong. But I guess you were talking about power users.
Robert Kaiser wrote: > Daniel schrieb: >> Hey, Robert, haven't we had two SeaMonkey 2.1a2's??
> No. We had two candidate builds for it, but only one that was released > and announced on websites, etc. > Nobody would be happy if we didn't correct builds before we released > them when we found errors that are not release-worthy (not even for an > alpha or beta).
> Robert Kaiser
O.K, so there was an unofficial release on SM 2.1a2 (which I downloaded), problems were found and fixed and an official release version of SM 2.1a2 was released (which I downloaded).
If it's just an alpha, and was different, why not just name it a3??
