I'm currently using version 3.6. I want to stay on 3.6 as long as possible but I'm not sure how much longer Mozilla will support it. Is there a lifecycle policy in place for versions. Are there any know End of Life/Support dates?
What Henri meant to say is that there is no policy. Mozilla attempts to keep old versions updated until users have had an opportunity to.upgrade, but does not guarantee that older versions will be supported once a new version is available.
(In the past, though, Mozilla has kept older versions up to date for much longer than this)
cheers, mike On 17/05/2011 9:09 AM, "Henri Sivonen" <hsivo...@iki.fi> wrote:
thanks for your reply. In fact, I make spécific dev under 3.6 which don't work on 4.0. I would like to know how long I have to change all.
Do you think Mozilla with keep version under LTS (long term support) like Ubuntu for example, since they will launch a new version every 6 month or less (?)
> thanks for your reply. > In fact, I make spécific dev under 3.6 which don't work on 4.0. I > would like to know how long I have to change all.
> Do you think Mozilla with keep version under LTS (long term support) > like Ubuntu for example, since they will launch a new version every 6 > month or less (?)
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:35 AM, philou <rayna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In fact, I make spécific dev under 3.6 which don't work on 4.0. I > would like to know how long I have to change all.
Everyone's being very cautious in this thread to make no promises at all. But I suspect, based on historical data, that it is likely (though not guaranteed) that 3.6 will be supported for several months at least. In particular, we're only just about to stop supporting 3.5, and I haven't heard anything yet about dropping 3.6 support.
Am I completeness off-base here?
philou, with respect to the 3.6-specific development you have done, if you describe what you've done I'm sure someone could help you transition your code to 4.0+. (But dev-platform would be a better place to ask about that.)
Long ago during the Firefox 2.0 cycle, Mozilla's policy was that each major version would be supported for six months after the next major version was released [1]. Historically, support has actually lasted longer than that. For example, Firefox 3.0 updates lasted until March 30, 2010 (nearly a year after Firefox 3.5 was released), and Firefox 3.5 is still supported today (more than a year after Firefox 3.6 was released).
However, as far as I know there is no current policy specifying a specific length of support for Firefox 3.6 or 4. For Firefox 5 and later, the new version will *be* the security update for the previous version, so users will need to stay on the release channel to be supported and receive updates.
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Matt Brubeck <mbrub...@mozilla.com> wrote: > Long ago during the Firefox 2.0 cycle, Mozilla's policy was that each major version would be supported for six months after the next major version was released [1].
"up to six months", actually, though as you say we have always (IIRC) gone a fair bit longer than that.
> However, as far as I know there is no current policy specifying a > specific length of support for Firefox 3.6 or 4.
Several people have repeatedly said in public places (newsgroups, planning meeting, Monday meeting; could not find a blog or wiki page) that Firefox 5 will be the security update to Firefox 4, and that there will be no 4.0.2 unless some issue between now and shipping Fx5 requires a chemspill response.
> Long ago during the Firefox 2.0 cycle, Mozilla's policy was that each major version would be supported for six months after the next major version was released [1]. Historically, support has actually lasted longer than that. For example, Firefox 3.0 updates lasted until March 30, 2010 (nearly a year after Firefox 3.5 was released), and Firefox 3.5 is still supported today (more than a year after Firefox 3.6 was released).
> However, as far as I know there is no current policy specifying a specific length of support for Firefox 3.6 or 4. For Firefox 5 and later, the new version will *be* the security update for the previous version, so users will need to stay on the release channel to be supported and receive updates.
1) Just do what we've done in the past and continue offering updates to 3.6 and 4.0 until we are comfortable with the balance between "as long as it takes to get most users migrated forward" and "until porting security fixes back becomes unbearable".
2) Pull all the levers at our disposal, including automatic updates to new major versions, as quickly as we can and stop back-porting all security updates.
3) Treat 3.6 users differently from 4.0 users because the jump from 3.6 to 4 is much larger than the jump from 4.0 to 5.0. Keep supporting 3.6 with security updates and increasingly loud prompted updates to our latest release until that number of users is low enough to make the updates automatic. Make Firefox 5 an automatic update for Firefox 4 users.
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Matt Brubeck<mbrub...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> Long ago during the Firefox 2.0 cycle, Mozilla's policy was that each major version would be supported for six months after the next major version was released [1].
> "up to six months", actually, though as you say we have always (IIRC) > gone a fair bit longer than that.
Erm, IIRC, it was "at least six months" - and we probably are somewhat bound to that earlier promise still for 3.6 - we should not be for 4 or later, but I think we didn't say that very loudly, even though it's been our understanding for some time.
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! :)
> However, as far as I know there is no current policy specifying a specific length of support for Firefox 3.6 or 4.
We never stated a _specific_ length ever, we stated a minimum, and for 3.6 we probably need to follow that one.
Firefox 4 should be treated as a member of the new breed in that regard, and have 5 as its security update.
Actually, we are prolonging the security support for 4 and later, it's not just a minimum of six months any more, now it's "forever", just that the security updates always bring features and a new "version" as well. ;-)
Robert Kaisre
-- 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! :)
> Mike Shaver schrieb: >> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Matt Brubeck<mbrub...@mozilla.com> >> wrote: >>> Long ago during the Firefox 2.0 cycle, Mozilla's policy was that each >>> major version would be supported for six months after the next major >>> version was released [1].
>> "up to six months", actually, though as you say we have always (IIRC) >> gone a fair bit longer than that.
> Erm, IIRC, it was "at least six months" - and we probably are somewhat > bound to that earlier promise still for 3.6
Actually that's wrong. The exact text of our commitment was:
"Last release to be supported with official security/stability updates no more than six months following general available of current release"
You can find this throughout our old roadmap documents.
But we're so far past 6 months for 3.6 that it's a moot point there.
> we should not be for 4 or later, but I think we didn't say that
We've been saying it pretty loudly since before 4 shipped. I'm not going to worry too much there.
> Matt Brubeck schrieb: >> However, as far as I know there is no current policy specifying a >> specific length of support for Firefox 3.6 or 4.
> We never stated a _specific_ length ever, we stated a minimum
As I said in my earlier comment, that is incorrect. We stated a maximum -- one that we've regularly ignored for the last few years in favor of trying to keep users on a secure version of Firefox.
> On 5/18/2011 2:00 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote: >> Erm, IIRC, it was "at least six months" - and we probably are somewhat >> bound to that earlier promise still for 3.6
> Actually that's wrong. The exact text of our commitment was:
> "Last release to be supported with official security/stability updates > no more than six months following general available of current release"
> You can find this throughout our old roadmap documents.
Okay.
It is also possible to find the opposite statement. According to [1] talking about Firefox 3:
"our policy is that there's a minimum of 6 months support after n+1 version is out"
However, it doesn't really matter, because it is hard to gracefully kill these old major versions within 6 months anyway.
> But we're so far past 6 months for 3.6 that it's a moot point there.
You're thinking of 3.5 not 3.6, I believe. See list below compiled from release notes and other notes:
FF 1.0 had updates for about 6 months after 1.5 FF 1.5 had updates for about 7 months after 2.0 FF 2.0 had updates for about 6 months after 3.0 FF 3.0 had updates for about 9 months after 3.5 FF 3.5 is still alive 16 months after 3.6 FF 3.6 is still alive 2 months after 4.0 FF 4.0 will be unsupported the moment FF 5.0 is released FF 5.0 will be unsupported the moment FF 6.0 is released FF 6.0 will be unsupported the moment FF 7.0 is released ...
> On 2011-05-18 23:26, Asa Dotzler wrote: >> On 5/18/2011 2:00 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote: >>> Erm, IIRC, it was "at least six months" - and we probably are somewhat >>> bound to that earlier promise still for 3.6
>> Actually that's wrong. The exact text of our commitment was:
>> "Last release to be supported with official security/stability updates >> no more than six months following general available of current release"
>> You can find this throughout our old roadmap documents.
> Okay.
> It is also possible to find the opposite statement. According to [1] > talking about Firefox 3:
> "our policy is that there's a minimum of 6 months support after n+1 > version is out"
That's a mis-statement of our policy in a page of meeting notes. Sure you can find all kinds of wrong information if you go digging for it. The policy is a maximum of 6 months and it has been for years.
>> But we're so far past 6 months for 3.6 that it's a moot point there.
> You're thinking of 3.5 not 3.6, I believe.
Yes, I was confusing 3.6 and 3.6. Sorry about that. 3.6 will be getting at least one more security and stability update at approximately the same time as Firefox 5 is released.
> On 2011-05-18 23:26, Asa Dotzler wrote: >> On 5/18/2011 2:00 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote: >>> Erm, IIRC, it was "at least six months" - and we probably are somewhat >>> bound to that earlier promise still for 3.6
>> Actually that's wrong. The exact text of our commitment was:
>> "Last release to be supported with official security/stability updates >> no more than six months following general available of current release"
>> You can find this throughout our old roadmap documents.
Interesting, do you have a link for that?
> It is also possible to find the opposite statement. According to [1] > talking about Firefox 3:
> "our policy is that there's a minimum of 6 months support after n+1 > version is out"
That's how I remember it.
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! :)
> John Thomsen schrieb: >> On 2011-05-18 23:26, Asa Dotzler wrote: >>> On 5/18/2011 2:00 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote: >>>> Erm, IIRC, it was "at least six months" - and we probably are somewhat >>>> bound to that earlier promise still for 3.6
>>> Actually that's wrong. The exact text of our commitment was:
>>> "Last release to be supported with official security/stability updates >>> no more than six months following general available of current release"
>>> You can find this throughout our old roadmap documents.
The update comment is "Last release to be supported with official security/stability updates no more than six months following general available of current release" and the text of the document is "the last major release at any given time would be supported with security and stability updates for up to six months following general availability of the current release."
"no more than" and "for up to" both clearly communicate that 6 months is the outer boundary, not the minimum.
That's the support commitment we made. There was no update to change the commitment from a maximum of 6 months to a minimum of 6 months. Any support longer than 6 months was because we were not satisfied with leaving that many users behind. But that was not a change in our commitment, it was us going above and beyond our commitment because we thought, in particular circumstances, it was the right thing to do.
>> It is also possible to find the opposite statement. According to [1] >> talking about Firefox 3:
>> "our policy is that there's a minimum of 6 months support after n+1 >> version is out"
> That's the support commitment we made. There was no update to change the > commitment from a maximum of 6 months to a minimum of 6 months.
Wow, has been widely published wrongly, then, to the point that a lot of us believed the wrong version. in the view of that, the new model is even easier to adopt. ;-)
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! :)
Daniel Veditz <dved...@mozilla.com> wrote: >On 5/18/11 10:15 AM, Matt Brubeck wrote: >> However, as far as I know there is no current policy specifying a >> specific length of support for Firefox 3.6 or 4.
>Several people have repeatedly said in public places (newsgroups, >planning meeting, Monday meeting; could not find a blog or wiki >page) that Firefox 5 will be the security update to Firefox 4, and >that there will be no 4.0.2 unless some issue between now and >shipping Fx5 requires a chemspill response.
Oh, dear. I've been linking the RapidRelease wiki in the support group and the forums. Apparently it's out of date or I misunderstood it. Thank you for your clarification. I'll stop linking to it.
>This section clarifies some questions that have come up about the relationship between Firefox 4 and older and Firefox 5.
> 5.0 and newer processes will not be "backported" onto 4.0.x and older releases > there will be 4.0.x releases and chemspill handling > branch team is taking over for 4.0.1 > there will be 3.6.x and 3.5.x releases and chemspill handling
> Daniel Veditz<dved...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> On 5/18/11 10:15 AM, Matt Brubeck wrote: >>> However, as far as I know there is no current policy specifying a >>> specific length of support for Firefox 3.6 or 4.
>> Several people have repeatedly said in public places (newsgroups, >> planning meeting, Monday meeting; could not find a blog or wiki >> page) that Firefox 5 will be the security update to Firefox 4, and >> that there will be no 4.0.2 unless some issue between now and >> shipping Fx5 requires a chemspill response.
> Oh, dear. I've been linking the RapidRelease wiki in the support > group and the forums. Apparently it's out of date or I misunderstood > it. Thank you for your clarification. I'll stop linking to it.
> *Current Discussions* > This section documents key discussion points and proposals > that are in progress or need to happen. It also notes > anything unclear. Where possible, it documents owners who > need to give input and/or drive the item to conclusion.
So, this is a discussion section, not an authoritative answers section.
That being said, there already has been a 4.0.x release and there may be another if a critical security issue arises that requires a "chemspill" unplanned emergency fix. But that would be an *unplanned* emergency release and not a planned one. The planned security update for Firefox 4 is Firefox 5.
> Daniel Veditz <dved...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> that there will be no 4.0.2 unless some issue between now and >> shipping Fx5 requires a chemspill response.
> Oh, dear. I've been linking the RapidRelease wiki in the support > group and the forums. Apparently it's out of date or I misunderstood > it. Thank you for your clarification. I'll stop linking to it.
There has been confusion even among the people who have edited that wiki page.
>> 5.0 and newer processes will not be "backported" onto 4.0.x and older releases
True enough, 4.0.x releases are built and managed in a different way. Doesn't say anything about the lifetime.
>> there will be 4.0.x releases and chemspill handling >> branch team is taking over for 4.0.1
Until we stop supporting 4.0.x
>> there will be 3.6.x and 3.5.x releases and chemspill handling
Until we stop supporting them. We have now for 3.5.x: the most recent 3.5.19 release was the last planned 3.5.x release. Likewise 4.0.1 was the last planned 4.0.x release. There's always the small possibility of an unplanned ("chemspill") release.
Daniel Veditz <dved...@mozilla.com> wrote: >On 5/22/11 8:00 PM, Alan Baxter wrote: >> Daniel Veditz <dved...@mozilla.com> wrote: >>> that there will be no 4.0.2 unless some issue between now and >>> shipping Fx5 requires a chemspill response.
>> Oh, dear. I've been linking the RapidRelease wiki in the support >> group and the forums. Apparently it's out of date or I misunderstood >> it. Thank you for your clarification. I'll stop linking to it.
>There has been confusion even among the people who have edited that >wiki page.
>>> 5.0 and newer processes will not be "backported" onto 4.0.x and older releases
>True enough, 4.0.x releases are built and managed in a different >way. Doesn't say anything about the lifetime.
>>> there will be 4.0.x releases and chemspill handling >>> branch team is taking over for 4.0.1
>Until we stop supporting 4.0.x
>>> there will be 3.6.x and 3.5.x releases and chemspill handling
>Until we stop supporting them. We have now for 3.5.x: the most >recent 3.5.19 release was the last planned 3.5.x release. Likewise >4.0.1 was the last planned 4.0.x release. There's always the small >possibility of an unplanned ("chemspill") release.
Thank you for the additional clarification. If Fx 5.0 becomes the security update for Fx 4.0 like Asa says is planned and contains security fixes that aren't in Fx 4.0, that seems to suggest that Fx 4.0 becomes insecure and no longer supported. In that case, would its effective lifetime be over, i.e. it becomes EOL just like Fx 3.0 and its predecessors?
