Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
mozilla.dev.planning
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Firefox 3.1 becoming Firefox 3.5
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
John J Barton  
View profile  
 More options Mar 6 2009, 4:56 pm
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.planning
From: John J Barton <johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 13:56:24 -0800
Local: Fri, Mar 6 2009 4:56 pm
Subject: Re: Firefox 3.1 becoming Firefox 3.5
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> On 3/6/09 11:59 AM, John J Barton wrote:
>>> On 3/6/09 11:29 AM, John J Barton wrote:
>>>> I suppose this all seems trivial from the inside. It's not the version
>>>> checking that is any issue, it's the toll in human communications. Bug
>>>> reports, email, news postings all refer to 3.1. These all refer to
>>>> something that is now gone. Yes another version will come out called
>>>> 3.5, but '3.1' does not go away.
>>> Might I suggest that you use codenames (Shiretoko) in the future then?
>>> Codenames are created for a reason.

>> That won't work here:
>> this.ff3p1 = versionChecker.compare(appInfo.version, "3.1*") >= 0;
> I'm a bit confused here.  You said it is not version checking that is a
> problem, but that it is human communication that is the issue.  I then
> suggested code names, and then you argued that that doesn't work in
> version checking code.  It almost looks like you are arguing for the
> sake of arguing here, which I don't think you actually mean to do.  Can
> you please clarify?

I was replying to Dave's suggestion that the maxVersion number was easy
to change; there are more impacts than that, including primarily human
communications but also code changes. Hope that is clearer.

>> Plus it's not practical because users don't say that, they say 3.1.
> Perhaps that's because developers say 3.1, so that's what users
> associate?  This seems a lot like a chicken and egg problem, honestly.

Ok, but I can't fix it.

>> This part I don't get: why wouldn't users be delighted with a bulging
>> new 3.1?
> The same kind of reasons why some users don't like the new location bar
> in Firefox 3.0.  Big changes are scary to users.  Small version bumps
> imply that there aren't many changes, whereas bigger ones imply that
> there will be more.  It's psychological.

But the new location bar was introduced with a major number change, 2.0
-> 3.0. Some people still didn't like it. So the number bit had nothing
to do with it.  It's not psychological, they just don't like it.

Let's face it, folks will complain about changes no matter what you
number them. I offer my posts here as evidence ;-(.

jjb


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google