On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 3:34 PM, John Vivirito wrote: > In the case of Ubuntu we don't auto-update and I'm sure is same for most > Linux distributions
if you leave users w/ alpha versions of software w/o auto updating, then your'e being reckless. and i'm perfectly fine w/ your users flaying you for such actions.
> > On Mar 7, 9:20 am, John Vivirito<mozilla.extensions....@gmail.com> > > wrote:
> >> That would also caaause an issue with extensions devs i think. if they > >> bump max version to 3.5 but the code changes in 3.2 might conflict with > >> code in extensions. > > This is absolutely a huge concern. The only solution to avoiding a > > conflict with an extension or theme developed for 3.1 is not to merely > > bump the maxVersion to 3.5.* for compatibility with Shiretoko 3.5, but > > to also bump the minVersion to 3.5b4pre or whatever number precisely > > identifies the first 3.5 build so that installation is not possible on > > anything identified as 3.2.*, and of course 3.6.*.
> I don't think this is a major concern since trunk will be bumped to > 3.6a1pre at the same time the branch is changed to 3.5b4pre. Certainly > it is possible that people using older versions of trunk might end up > installing a 3.5 compatible add-on, but really most people there will be > auto-updating to new nightlies all the time. Anyone staying fixed on > older versions have their own problems to content with anyway.
I agree with you, Dave. That's why I have opted to bump the maxVersion and keep minVersion as is. I figure anyone testing a 3.2 build (or any test build for that matter) before updating to 3.6 has learned to expect compatibility issues along the way. Besides, in my case I can only think of one extension where problems may be seen. As long as all is good with the milestones, all is good with me.
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 3:34 PM, John Vivirito wrote: >> In the case of Ubuntu we don't auto-update and I'm sure is same for most >> Linux distributions > if you leave users w/ alpha versions of software w/o auto updating, > then your'e being reckless. and i'm perfectly fine w/ your users > flaying you for such actions.
Maybe he was just meaning that Ubuntu doesn't use the Mozilla Updater, but relies on its own package mechanism to deliver new Mozilla testing milestones?
> On 08.03.2009 21:29, timeless wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 3:34 PM, John Vivirito wrote: >>> In the case of Ubuntu we don't auto-update and I'm sure is same for >>> most >>> Linux distributions >> if you leave users w/ alpha versions of software w/o auto updating, >> then your'e being reckless. and i'm perfectly fine w/ your users >> flaying you for such actions.
> Maybe he was just meaning that Ubuntu doesn't use the Mozilla Updater, > but relies on its own package mechanism to deliver new Mozilla testing > milestones? > _______________________________________________ > dev-planning mailing list > dev-plann...@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
We update our packages for Ubuntu archives so you are never left with old versions. Within days of mozilla release we push our package to archives.
> As for the changes in versions, does this affect release times or is 3.5 > still set to be released before 3.2? > If not maybe bumping 3.2 to 3.6 or something like that this way it all > stays inline. releasing 3.5 than releasing 3.2 might (most likely will) > confuse end usaers.
>> As for the changes in versions, does this affect release times or is 3.5 >> still set to be released before 3.2? >> If not maybe bumping 3.2 to 3.6 or something like that this way it all >> stays inline. releasing 3.5 than releasing 3.2 might (most likely will) >> confuse end usaers.
this is, quite honestly, pointless talk - and i say this as a user.
i love my firefox, however i HATE what is has become: a competitive, commercial-like piece of software. we shouldnt be implementing changes just because chrome has this and firefox doesn't: we should be implementing features we think we need. and honestly, spend more time working on releasing 3.1 than talking about its version number...
i personally love this numbering system:
Y.x.x x.Y.x x.x.Y
in the first row, Y marks a major milestone, as the jump from 2 -> 3. a change in the second Y would be functioning differences / major feature additions, however no new interface etc. that the first change would include. if Y changes in the third row, it indicates a small security update. works for the ipod touch, should work for firefox.
and this way, users would know what to expect from an upcoming change. i will be one of many firefox users scratching my head and wondering at the logic in a 3.0.8 -> 3.5 leap.
Mike Shaver wrote: > As was discussed at the delivery meeting yesterday, we're proposing to > change the version number of Shiretoko from 3.1 to 3.5.
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet; Romeo and Juliet (William Shakespeare)
Given that old wisdom, why do so many people shed tears about this decision? Either it's a good product or it's not, either you like it or don't, either you support the team or don't. As long as the next release has a higher number than the last, everything else is a marketing decision, and so far the Firefox marketing people have done a very good job to bring a product with the Mozilla philosophy to a rapidly increasing number of people. Don't you trust them? If you do, could you stop whining?
Robert Kaiser
P.S.: Jumping to X.5 for such steps is a long-going tradition, dating back to the times when Mozilla still was only a codename for Netscape's browsers.
On 03/13/2009 02:19 AM, btha...@gmail.com wrote: > this is, quite honestly, pointless talk - and i say this as a user. [snip] > and honestly, spend more time > working on releasing 3.1 than talking about its version number...
Agreed. Why continue harping on it, then? :)
> i personally love this numbering system: > > Y.x.x ... > i will be one of many firefox users scratching my head and wondering > at the logic in a 3.0.8 -> 3.5 leap.
I think you might misunderstand -- this is an upgrade from 3.0.x to 3.5.0 (not to 3.5). Security releases will be 3.5.1, 3.5.2, etc. (as mentioned in the third post on this thread)
Or, if you're wondering about why it's a "5", see the initial post on this thread, from Mike Shaver.
oh believe me, i do not misunderstand anything. i full understand why the leap was made, i know security updates will be 3.5.x, i know why it is a '5' - my concern is that the average computer user won't understand the logic in 3.0.8 -> 3.5.0.
then again, i dont know why the average user would even give a fudge about the number...
