As David mentioned in his previous thread, we have been holding beta 3 on a handful of JS patches, chiefly "upvar" (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=452498). That patch is getting close, but the continuing and great work on fixing other final-release blockers means that we're accumulating a lot of changes on the 1.9.1 stream that would benefit from wider feedback from our beta testers. To that end, we're going to wrap up beta 3 in the next week regardless of upvar status; a 4th beta will follow approximately 6 weeks after, as a vehicle for more testing of tracemonkey, video, places and other eagerly-awaited improvements as well as feedback from beta 3.
(Contrary to some reports, this "upvar" patch is not being taken as a performance win at this point, but primarily to improve correctness and robustness. It lays a foundation that we believe will give us great performance opportunities in the future, which is wonderful, but not what's motivating its priority at this point.)
Analysis of our crash stats and other feedback indicate that we're in a good position with respect to stability and robustness, with key areas easily identified and a good understanding of the work needed to remedy remaining issues. (If you're one of the developers churning through those bugs every day, it's easy to be pessimistic about them, of course, which is a trait I value in engineers. :) )
Please join the product delivery call today at 11 Pacific for more discussion of this, and thanks to everyone for their great work on FF3.1 so far -- it's shaping up to be a very worth successor to Firefox 3!
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Simon Paquet <si...@gmx.de> wrote: > Given all the efforts that went into FF3.1 and given its prolonged > schedule and expanded scope, I was wondering whether it might make more > sense to name it Firefox 3.5 just as Firefox 1.1 was renamed Firefox 1.5?
You are not the first to suggest that, indeed! I think we should discuss exactly that, but in another thread and after we get beta3 out the door. :)
We are going to be extremely conservative here, using the criteria that we use for non-blocker approvals. To get in, a feature will need to be:
- complete: no follow up fixes or initial implimentations that commit us to extending the schedule further - proven: patches with tests, security reviews and performance impact analysis, baked on trunk for a good amount of time - valuable: we need to understand the benefit of taking the change, and why it's needed for 3.1 instead of later - removable: backout-ready, if anything goes wrong
There are certain things which are tempting targets of opportunity, and I'm happy to talk about them when people are done their work on the 120 blockers that remain, but we should not consider this as a re-opening for new features.
----- Original Message ----- From: dev-planning-bounces+beltzner=mozilla....@lists.mozilla.org
<dev-planning-bounces+beltzner=mozilla....@lists.mozilla.org> To: dev-plann...@lists.mozilla.org <dev-plann...@lists.mozilla.org> Sent: Wed Feb 25 17:05:57 2009 Subject: Re: Firefox 3.1 status update
Any chance of accepting new features that were originally intended for 1.9.2 given the addition of a 4th beta? _______________________________________________ dev-planning mailing list dev-plann...@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
To add here, I think it's common understanding that we're keeping the tree as string frozen as planned. Not sure if that's impacting the features you're thinking about.
> We are going to be extremely conservative here, using the criteria that we > use for non-blocker approvals. To get in, a feature will need to be:
> - complete: no follow up fixes or initial implimentations that commit us to > extending the schedule further > - proven: patches with tests, security reviews and performance impact > analysis, baked on trunk for a good amount of time > - valuable: we need to understand the benefit of taking the change, and why > it's needed for 3.1 instead of later > - removable: backout-ready, if anything goes wrong
> There are certain things which are tempting targets of opportunity, and I'm > happy to talk about them when people are done their work on the 120 blockers > that remain, but we should not consider this as a re-opening for new > features.
> At least, as I understand things at this time :)
> cheers, > mike
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: dev-planning-bounces+beltzner=mozilla....@lists.mozilla.org > <dev-planning-bounces+beltzner=mozilla....@lists.mozilla.org> > To: dev-plann...@lists.mozilla.org<dev-plann...@lists.mozilla.org> > Sent: Wed Feb 25 17:05:57 2009 > Subject: Re: Firefox 3.1 status update
> Any chance of accepting new features that were originally intended for > 1.9.2 given the addition of a 4th beta? > _______________________________________________ > dev-planning mailing list > dev-plann...@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
> To add here, I think it's common understanding that we're keeping > the tree as string frozen as planned. Not sure if that's impacting > the features you're thinking about.
Yes, definitely. Any string modifications will have to be for features with obvious and proven value, and ideally will be ready to go within the first week of re-opening as to minimize impact to our ability to ship locales.
I'm going to send some email shortly with a proposed schedule. Still trying to get a handle on what section of the P2s blockers we want to get in for Beta 3 code freeze.
> Any chance of accepting new features that were originally intended for > 1.9.2 given the addition of a 4th beta?
Given our near in-ability to get the tree closed down for beta 3, I'd say no. I really think that 3.1 ought to stay as feature frozen as possible at this point. I don't want to repeat this "inability to close on a beta" business when we roll around to beta 4 and I think that new features would exacerbate this problem.
All that said, I would like to know what the features you are proposing we take so we can make a more informed case-by-case decision, but I still think that the scope for anything we take would have to be pretty small and the benefit would have to be pretty high for us to take it this late in the game.