> This thread got turned into a bogus "news" article via conceivablytech and
> Slashdot.
> It does raise the question though: maybe we should slow down our release
> cycle, while we work out the problems with addon compatibility and our
> updater?
I've been thinking about those things as well. I would say that if we
are going to keep the 6-week pace, at least silent update and fixing
add-on compatibility should be top-priority work.
I'm not sure what we're planning for enterprise support at this point,
but that seems like another important thing that needs to be fixed if we
are going to keep releasing much more often than annually.
> On 9/20/2011 2:57 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>> This thread got turned into a bogus "news" article via conceivablytech and
>> Slashdot.
>> It does raise the question though: maybe we should slow down our release
>> cycle, while we work out the problems with addon compatibility and our
>> updater?
> I've been thinking about those things as well. I would say that if we
> are going to keep the 6-week pace, at least silent update and fixing
> add-on compatibility should be top-priority work.
We formed a team / had our first meeting last week to focus on silent updates and it is definitely a top priority. You can see some of the planned work on the desktop features page.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Desktop
> I'm not sure what we're planning for enterprise support at this point,
> but that seems like another important thing that needs to be fixed if we
> are going to keep releasing much more often than annually.
There has been a lot of discussion around support for Firefox deployments and hopefully resources will be allocated towards making supporting deployments better though there haven't been as of yet as far as I know.
Rest assured that there are people working on silent update, add-on compatibility, and enterprise support. Here are some links if you want more info or want to get involved in any of these efforts.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Mandelin" <dmande...@mozilla.com>
To: dev-plann...@lists.mozilla.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 7:22:08 PM
Subject: Re: A five week release cycle?
On 9/20/2011 2:57 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> This thread got turned into a bogus "news" article via conceivablytech and
> Slashdot.
> It does raise the question though: maybe we should slow down our release
> cycle, while we work out the problems with addon compatibility and our
> updater?
I've been thinking about those things as well. I would say that if we
are going to keep the 6-week pace, at least silent update and fixing
add-on compatibility should be top-priority work.
I'm not sure what we're planning for enterprise support at this point,
but that seems like another important thing that needs to be fixed if we
are going to keep releasing much more often than annually.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Robert Strong <rstr...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> We formed a team / had our first meeting last week to focus on silent
> updates and it is definitely a top priority. You can see some of the planned
> work on the desktop features page.
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/**Features/Desktop<https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Desktop>
That is very good. However I imagine that it will still be a while before
that work is ready to ship, especially since updater reliability is so
critical. Can we afford to keep doing rapid releases in the meantime?
This is up to product drivers. I assume they've thought this through
carefully already. I just want to be sure we don't have a "we never really
considered that" moment later.
Rob
-- "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in
us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our
sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned,
we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us." [1 John 1:8-10]
>> I'm not sure what we're planning for enterprise support at this point,
>> but that seems like another important thing that needs to be fixed if we
>> are going to keep releasing much more often than annually.
> There has been a lot of discussion around support for Firefox
> deployments and hopefully resources will be allocated towards making
> supporting deployments better
Speaking of enterprise support - Asa has been rather silent lately. I do miss his weekly summaries...
> This thread got turned into a bogus "news" article via conceivablytech and
> Slashdot.
> It does raise the question though: maybe we should slow down our release
> cycle, while we work out the problems with addon compatibility and our
> updater?
I do not know if this is related to the release cycle, but I have noticed that the time it takes to get an addon reviewed seems to be skyrocketing; my latest revision is still in the queue (only 42 out of 210!) after no fewer than 23 days...
> This thread got turned into a bogus "news" article via conceivablytech and
> Slashdot.
This is a surprise? :(
To be honest, it wasn't clear to me whether the original post in this thread was even being serious or not... But it was pretty much custom-designed to be taken out of context.
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Robert Strong <rstr...@mozilla.com > <mailto:rstr...@mozilla.com>> wrote:
> We formed a team / had our first meeting last week to focus on
> silent updates and it is definitely a top priority. You can see
> some of the planned work on the desktop features page.
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Desktop
> That is very good. However I imagine that it will still be a while > before that work is ready to ship, especially since updater > reliability is so critical. Can we afford to keep doing rapid releases > in the meantime?
I don't think we have data either way that shows it to be a problem that should make us reconsider rapid release at this time. There are also a couple areas where we will be improving the current process. The most immediate improvement that should have the largest impact is the add-on compatibility work being done on AMO since if an add-on will be disabled by the update the user has to opt-in to receiving the update whereas by default the update will download in the background and be applied during startup.
> This is up to product drivers. I assume they've thought this through > carefully already. I just want to be sure we don't have a "we never > really considered that" moment later.
Agreed wholeheartedly. One misconception I get a lot that I think falls into "we never really considered that" is that silent updates will take care of the add-on compatibility problem. In reality, the user will still be warned unless the preference to check if add-ons will be disabled by the update is set to disable the check. Any Mozilla application can choose to ignore the check by default but that is just the wrong approach to solving the problem.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Robert O'Callahan
<rob...@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> It does raise the question though: maybe we should slow down our release
> cycle, while we work out the problems with addon compatibility and our
> updater?
What are the current time estimates for getting Silent Update and
JetPack into Firefox? That is, for how long would we need to slow
down?
(It looks worrying that 9 months after we started thinking of a rapid
release process and 6 months after having a concrete process proposal,
the Silent Update feature page shows its status as "Planning".)
If any Mozilla developers are even remotely interested in why this loyal FF user is about to leave..it's not because of too slow updating, it's because in the updates, I lose all my extensions and add ons faster than their programmers can keep up. Just want a stable FF that will manage Google Toolbar and SEO Quake. And FF is turning into the memory hog that IE is. Quit fixing it to death!
> On 9/20/2011 4:57 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>> This thread got turned into a bogus "news" article via conceivablytech
>> and
>> Slashdot.
>> It does raise the question though: maybe we should slow down our release
>> cycle, while we work out the problems with addon compatibility and our
>> updater?
> I do not know if this is related to the release cycle, but I have
> noticed that the time it takes to get an addon reviewed seems to be
> skyrocketing; my latest revision is still in the queue (only 42 out of
> 210!) after no fewer than 23 days...
I love firefox and mostly everything around it, you surely got the best addons etc. BUT before you think about speeding up the release interval, please give us a solid and clean possibility to deploy and manage firefox in enterprise environments!! At home i don't have any problem about a fast or even faster release interval, but for it administrators its a real challenge to deploy and manage all the new versions every couple of weeks. Please make a solid msi package and msp update packages for Windows and the last little part which can make it perfect, would be the possiblity to manage the settings etc. via GPO's (group policies). AND do it yourself, don't count on third part developers to manage this... i don't trust all the different ways on the net to bring it into active directory or other ways of deployment, mostly they aren't up to date or missing some new functions or something...
At our enterprise, firefox still runs with v3.x because i don't have the time to test every new version and the deployment of it every couple of weeks. so if you want to keep your wide usage of firefox around the world and compete with IE, think about supporting IT Administrators in their work. IE9 / 10 is not as bad as the older versions were, so we'll maybe switch back to IE only if you don't help us keep it manageable. At home i love firefox, at work i hate it... and much users aren't willing to use 2 different browsers and if they just can't use firefox at work, i don't think they really consider to use it at home, so they don't have to get familiar with 2 browsers (clearly i talk about the simple users, not some sort of power user).
Simple: Please support enterprise deployment for active directory based environments, then it wouldn't be such a pain in the ass..embly :) Our users don't have admin rights of course, because they don't know what they're doing. ;)
Hi! This topic has been discussed thoroughly here, and ongoing
discussion has been moved to a separate working group / mailing list
until solid proposals and plans are in place.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:20 AM, <stz3l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Mozilla Developers
> I love firefox and mostly everything around it, you surely got the best addons etc. BUT before you think about speeding up the release interval, please give us a solid and clean possibility to deploy and manage firefox in enterprise environments!! At home i don't have any problem about a fast or even faster release interval, but for it administrators its a real challenge to deploy and manage all the new versions every couple of weeks. Please make a solid msi package and msp update packages for Windows and the last little part which can make it perfect, would be the possiblity to manage the settings etc. via GPO's (group policies). AND do it yourself, don't count on third part developers to manage this... i don't trust all the different ways on the net to bring it into active directory or other ways of deployment, mostly they aren't up to date or missing some new functions or something...
> At our enterprise, firefox still runs with v3.x because i don't have the time to test every new version and the deployment of it every couple of weeks. so if you want to keep your wide usage of firefox around the world and compete with IE, think about supporting IT Administrators in their work. IE9 / 10 is not as bad as the older versions were, so we'll maybe switch back to IE only if you don't help us keep it manageable. At home i love firefox, at work i hate it... and much users aren't willing to use 2 different browsers and if they just can't use firefox at work, i don't think they really consider to use it at home, so they don't have to get familiar with 2 browsers (clearly i talk about the simple users, not some sort of power user).
> Simple: Please support enterprise deployment for active directory based environments, then it wouldn't be such a pain in the ass..embly :) Our users don't have admin rights of course, because they don't know what they're doing. ;)
> _______________________________________________
> dev-planning mailing list
> dev-plann...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
>>> It does raise the question though: maybe we should slow down our release
>>> cycle, while we work out the problems with addon compatibility and our
>>> updater?
>> I do not know if this is related to the release cycle, but I have
>> noticed that the time it takes to get an addon reviewed seems to be
>> skyrocketing; my latest revision is still in the queue (only 42 out of
>> 210!) after no fewer than 23 days...
> On 21.09.2011 11:53, Michael Lefevre wrote:
>>>> It does raise the question though: maybe we should slow down our release
>>>> cycle, while we work out the problems with addon compatibility and our
>>>> updater?
>>> I do not know if this is related to the release cycle, but I have
>>> noticed that the time it takes to get an addon reviewed seems to be
>>> skyrocketing; my latest revision is still in the queue (only 42 out of
>>> 210!) after no fewer than 23 days...
> Maybe we should hold back non-critical updates until the "Full Review Updates"
> queue is down to zero?
Isn't the problem that for every update that rolls out (ie every 6 weeks), a new mass of 'critical' ("Without this update, my add-on breaks in Firefox.next") add-on updates starts?
I don't think that's something that can be fixed by any kind of temporary stop on some types of reviews - only by adding reviewers, or by somehow making it easier for add-on authors to stay compatible (through the automatic compat marking, and/or jetpack, and/or breaking fewer APIs on which lots of add-ons rely).
> On 21/09/2011 14:22 PM, Dao wrote:
>> On 21.09.2011 11:53, Michael Lefevre wrote:
>>>>> It does raise the question though: maybe we should slow down our
>>>>> release
>>>>> cycle, while we work out the problems with addon compatibility and our
>>>>> updater?
>>>> I do not know if this is related to the release cycle, but I have
>>>> noticed that the time it takes to get an addon reviewed seems to be
>>>> skyrocketing; my latest revision is still in the queue (only 42 out of
>>>> 210!) after no fewer than 23 days...
>> Maybe we should hold back non-critical updates until the "Full Review
>> Updates"
>> queue is down to zero?
> Isn't the problem that for every update that rolls out (ie every 6
> weeks), a new mass of 'critical' ("Without this update, my add-on breaks
> in Firefox.next") add-on updates starts?
(Please excuse my bad english - I'am a German one)
I fully agree with you stz3. A better enterprise support would be great.
But for this topic there is another very important point, which must be considered: the psychologic side.
If this release-cycle is hold, more and more consumers switch to other browsers. Why? There are a couple of reasons:
1. Many users are affraid, that their Add-Ons are not compatible
2. The fast increase of the major version number "hustle" the users and developers at the cost of security, care and functionality which results in a worse browser.
3. Also the fast increase makes a joke out of this politic. Here in Germany some people already tell it a "running Firegag" (analog to: "running Gag").
4. Additionally a new bigger major-number let the users think, that there are more new features as their can be implemented in the short time.
Furthermore many people would even wait longer, and had a better tested browser, and much more features with a big release numbers instead of this version-ralley.
For sure - security problems should be fixed as soon as possible, but this could be done with minor-patches. Also little changes could be implemented in an minor release. (e.g. version-number 4.0 to 4.5)
Also the fast cycle is more work for the core-developer of firefox, which can also result in less care and security problems (the "hustle-problem").
So the question is:
Is the fast increase of the major version-number really needed? Can't it be replaced by minor-numbers, and every half-year (or a hole year) a bigger release? (and if it only be done for the psychologic of humans)
Overall the fast release-cycle is contraproductive for all: Consumers, extension-developers, and core-developers.
I suggest that you read our article before you make such a public statement. We have never reported on your 5-week release cycle, but on the fact that Firefox market share is in a decline.
> On 21.09.2011 14:33, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
>> On 21/09/2011 14:22 PM, Dao wrote:
>>> On 21.09.2011 11:53, Michael Lefevre wrote:
>>>>>> It does raise the question though: maybe we should slow down our
>>>>>> release
>>>>>> cycle, while we work out the problems with addon compatibility and
>>>>>> our
>>>>>> updater?
>>>>> I do not know if this is related to the release cycle, but I have
>>>>> noticed that the time it takes to get an addon reviewed seems to be
>>>>> skyrocketing; my latest revision is still in the queue (only 42 out of
>>>>> 210!) after no fewer than 23 days...
>>> Maybe we should hold back non-critical updates until the "Full Review
>>> Updates"
>>> queue is down to zero?
>> Isn't the problem that for every update that rolls out (ie every 6
>> weeks), a new mass of 'critical' ("Without this update, my add-on breaks
>> in Firefox.next") add-on updates starts?
> I'm talking about non-critical Firefox updates.
That'd be definitely a big help for the AMO Editors team. More realistically, though, we just need to bring the queues back down to the acceptable levels, which are 10 days for full nominations, 5 days for updates and 3 days for preliminary reviews.
We're working on some other measures to reduce waiting times, like hiring a full time editor who joined us last week, but it is unclear at the moment if this will be sufficient.
>>>> Maybe we should hold back non-critical updates until the "Full Review
>>>> Updates"
>>>> queue is down to zero?
>>> Isn't the problem that for every update that rolls out (ie every 6
>>> weeks), a new mass of 'critical' ("Without this update, my add-on breaks
>>> in Firefox.next") add-on updates starts?
>> I'm talking about non-critical Firefox updates.
> That'd be definitely a big help for the AMO Editors team. More
> realistically, though, we just need to bring the queues back down to the
> acceptable levels,
Is this actually more realistic? Can it happen within the next six days, when Firefox 7 is due?
I suggest that you read our article before you make such a public statement. We have never reported on your 5-week release cycle, but on the fact that Firefox market share is in a decline.
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Robert O'Callahan
> <rob...@ocallahan.org> wrote:
>> It does raise the question though: maybe we should slow down our release
>> cycle, while we work out the problems with addon compatibility and our
>> updater?
> What are the current time estimates for getting Silent Update and
> JetPack into Firefox? That is, for how long would we need to slow
> down?
What do you mean by "JetPack into Firefox"? The Jetpack SDK reached 1.0 status around the same time Firefox 4 shipped.
I have to admit, however that the confusion in this thread, with some pretty high ranking Mozillians advocating a shortening of the release cycle and others suggesting an extension is sending a very strange signal to the public. Sure, you guys are 'just' employees and you can always claim that these are your personal opinions and you are just talking, but, in such a forum, you will always represent Mozilla as well. You guys are quick to attack the press, but this case shows that you guys lack the very same diligence you complain about.
My personal opinion, for what it is worth, is that this discussion should not be held in public. I personally do not think that your shortened release cycle works, I do not think that it has provided any benefit, but just headaches for enterprise users and your market share declines faster than ever before (according to StatCounter). If you guys believe in the 6-week cycle, you need to finetune it, bring silent updates as fast as you can, provide stable versions for enterprise users until you have a better solution, and streamline your communication what Firefox will be and what not. Even if I have been following you guys for 7 years, I have no idea what to expect from Firefox and what it will look like one year from now.
What users will get from this discussion is that the 6-week cycle may change. It may be longer or shorter, or stay the same. It introduces uncertainty. I don't think that Mozilla needs discussions like this at this time. That's my personal opinion and not the opinion of ConceivablyTech.
I have to admit, however that the confusion in this thread, with some pretty high ranking Mozillians advocating a shortening of the release cycle and others suggesting an extension is sending a very strange signal to the public. Sure, you guys are 'just' employees and you can always claim that these are your personal opinions and you are just talking, but, in such a forum, you will always represent Mozilla as well. You guys are quick to attack the press, but this case shows that you guys lack the very same diligence you complain about.
My personal opinion, for what it is worth, is that this discussion should not be held in public. I personally do not think that your shortened release cycle works, I do not think that it has provided any benefit, but just headaches for enterprise users and your market share declines faster than ever before (according to StatCounter). If you guys believe in the 6-week cycle, you need to finetune it, bring silent updates as fast as you can, provide stable versions for enterprise users until you have a better solution, and streamline your communication what Firefox will be and what not. Even if I have been following you guys for 7 years, I have no idea what to expect from Firefox and what it will look like one year from now.
What users will get from this discussion is that the 6-week cycle may change. It may be longer or shorter, or stay the same. It introduces uncertainty. I don't think that Mozilla needs discussions like this at this time. That's my personal opinion and not the opinion of ConceivablyTech.
