- Make front page more clear that 1.0.1 _is_ the security update - mozilla.org/security should also have an announcement
- Going through the security bounty claims; probably 3 or 4 to pay - Need dveditz, who's away for two days - hope to do it by the weekend
*Firefox 1.1*
- ben, chofmann, scott going to grind out the plan for 1.1 tomorrow - Try and predict when the work will be done to get a branch date - Aiming for June 1st, but this may not be realistic
*Thunderbird 1.1*
- Meeting tomorrow - Confident of being ready by June
*FOSDEM report*
- l10n community is vibrant and active - Shooting for near 40 localisations for 1.0.1 - Hitting some scaling and management issues - CVS account creation for localisers - myk or dave to take care of it
*UMO load*
- In good shape; ready for pushing 1.0.1 to RDF file - That's going to happen today - We've got the capacity to deal with the "first week" spike
*DevMo*
- Deb started work today - Putting together a high-level plan for DevMo
*Volunteer Awards*
- In progress; no concrete plan yet
*IDN/punycode domain spoofing*
- Gerv has a lot of email to read!
*Other*
- Boris Zbarsky and Josh Aas hired part-time until they've finished school - We didn't hire Kai (confusion caused by last week's notes)
It means that 2005-02-28, the mozilla.org staff was unsure about whether or not to release a 1.8 final release; and they planned to discuss it the following day (March 1).
> Why have a beta if there will not be a final?
Mainly Gecko testing. I haven't read anything on what the outcome of the discussion was; so if there's still a possibility of a 1.8 final release, that's another reason to do a beta.
Boris 'pi' Piwinger wrote: > Gervase Markham <g...@mozilla.org> wrote: >>*Mozilla 1.8 final* >>- To be discussed tomorrow whether we do one
> What does that mean?
It means that we're focused on shipping our premier applications, Firefox and Thunderbird, and any efforts we're spending on Seamonkey right now are devoted to maintaining the 1.7 branch with security and stability updates.
> Why have a beta if there will not be a final?
Seamonkey is a fine testbed for Gecko improvements that will be a part of any application releases that come from the 1.8 branch.
asa dotzler <a...@mozilla.org> wrote: >>>*Mozilla 1.8 final* >>>- To be discussed tomorrow whether we do one
>> What does that mean?
>It means that we're focused on shipping our premier applications, Firefox and Thunderbird, >and any efforts we're spending on Seamonkey right now are devoted to maintaining the 1.7 >branch with security and stability updates.
But that is pretty frozen feature-wise.
>> Why have a beta if there will not be a final?
>Seamonkey is a fine testbed for Gecko improvements that will be a part of any application >releases that come from the 1.8 branch.
I still don't get that. We have this 1.8 branch. But if it keeps at beta, won't that limit the quality of application releases coming from it?
Boris 'pi' Piwinger wrote: > asa dotzler <a...@mozilla.org> wrote:
>>>>*Mozilla 1.8 final* >>>>- To be discussed tomorrow whether we do one
>>>What does that mean?
>>It means that we're focused on shipping our premier applications, Firefox and Thunderbird, >>and any efforts we're spending on Seamonkey right now are devoted to maintaining the 1.7 >>branch with security and stability updates.
> But that is pretty frozen feature-wise.
Yes, it is.
>>>Why have a beta if there will not be a final?
>>Seamonkey is a fine testbed for Gecko improvements that will be a part of any application >>releases that come from the 1.8 branch.
> I still don't get that. We have this 1.8 branch. But if it > keeps at beta, won't that limit the quality of application > releases coming from it?
Not really. Having beta releases helps to improve quality.
>> What does that mean? Why have a beta if there will not be a >> final?
> It means that the Mozilla Foundation don't care about Mozilla users!
And that's why I'm putting pretty much all my time right now into trying to get a 1.7.6 release out -- because I don't care about Mozilla users?
We most certainly do care about Mozilla (Seamonkey) users and that's why we're devoting quite a bit of time and effort to making high quality stability and security releases for 1.7.x users.
Boris 'pi' Piwinger wrote: > asa dotzler <a...@mozilla.org> wrote:
>>>>*Mozilla 1.8 final* >>>>- To be discussed tomorrow whether we do one
>>>What does that mean?
>>It means that we're focused on shipping our premier applications, Firefox and Thunderbird, >>and any efforts we're spending on Seamonkey right now are devoted to maintaining the 1.7 >>branch with security and stability updates.
> But that is pretty frozen feature-wise.
>>>Why have a beta if there will not be a final?
>>Seamonkey is a fine testbed for Gecko improvements that will be a part of any application >>releases that come from the 1.8 branch.
> I still don't get that. We have this 1.8 branch. But if it > keeps at beta, won't that limit the quality of application > releases coming from it?
> pi
Boris,
I don't understand the 'attitude' with MoFo, either.
Let's just look at the Seamonkey 'branch' as Asa put it, the testbed for future Gecko developments that will go into the 'other' apps. (Fx.Tb, NVu, etc...)
MoFo has no further interest in maintaining Seamonkey, or the "Mozilla Suite" beyond the 1.7.x releases.
It's been stated in some of the discussions on mozillazine.org, that the Suite was NEVER a 'user app'...and MoFo is just beginning to stand on that call. The suite was to be used by commercial folks (Netscape, IBM, Linspire, etc.) to enhance and support.
The Suite will eventually die, because MoFo has begun to ignore it. MoFo wants to focus energy in the "Premiere Apps" (gee, wasn't the 'Suite' the ONLY MoFo application to begin with?)
It's my opinion that, Asa's statement above that "Seamonkey will be used to 'test' Gecko changes" is to AVOID the hassle of testing with Fx users...what? Is MoFo afraid to put a bug/glitch/security problem into a "Premier App" for testing? Geesh....Microsoft does it all the time, and look where they stand as a company.
I'm concerned that MoFo is interested TOO MUCH about PRODUCTS and MARKETING, rather than technologies. MoFo is NOT Microsoft, but I believe that they want to be. If that's the case...they need to hand off the code so they can worry about products and marketing, something that MoFo still should NOT be involved in.
Of course, the code should stay within MoFo...the current MoFo 'attitude' needs to fork off into a 'marketing firm.'
I fear the worst, because I feel that something's not going in right direction, and my interest in MoFo and it's projects are fading. That truly disturbs me.
>>> What does that mean? Why have a beta if there will not be a >>> final?
>> It means that the Mozilla Foundation don't care about Mozilla users!
> No, it probably means that the MF doesn't care *as much* about the > Mozilla *Seamonkey* users as it cares about the Mozilla Aviary users. ;-)
Yeah, we all knew that this was going to happen one day, but my only hope is that this move isn't going to be the next bad decision from former AOL/Time Warner employees.
>- Boris Zbarsky and Josh Aas hired part-time until they've finished > school
Great news that you hired Boris. IMO he is one of our greatest hackers if not the greatest and he often doesn't get nearly enough credit for all his work.
Simon -- Default QA Contact Firefox - Menus/Toolbars/Installer My Mozilla blog: http://www.babylonsounds.com/blog.html Join us on Bugday: Every Tuesday from 10 AM - 6 PM PST in the #mozillazine channel on irc.mozilla.org
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:16:45 -0800, asa dotzler <a...@mozilla.org> wrote:
>And that's why I'm putting pretty much all my time right now into trying to get a 1.7.6 >release out -- because I don't care about Mozilla users?
>We most certainly do care about Mozilla (Seamonkey) users and that's why we're devoting >quite a bit of time and effort to making high quality stability and security releases for >1.7.x users.
>--Asa
Well, there's little I can add at this point that I haven't already spewed forth. One can only hope that the millions of folks that use the suite worldwide aren't foresaken.
Perhaps, perhaps a new direction is called for. You firefox boys start a seperate 'foundation', "The Firefox Foundation". Pass mozilla on to someone who wants to continue the legacy of Netscape.
Frankly, the suite may best be served by getting it into the hands of people who actually want it to be the 'main' product...which you guys by your own admission, don't.
> It means that we're focused on shipping our premier applications, Firefox and Thunderbird, > and any efforts we're spending on Seamonkey right now are devoted to maintaining the 1.7 > branch with security and stability updates.
Asa, I think almost everyone knows where seamonkey stands in terms of priority, but I think the question of "will there be a 1.8 final release" needs to be answered in a very direct and simply way: "yes", "no", or "we haven't decided yet"?
On 2005-03-06, Chris Ilias <readmy...@ilias.invalid> wrote:
> _asa dotzler_ spoke thusly: >> It means that we're focused on shipping our premier applications, Firefox and Thunderbird, >> and any efforts we're spending on Seamonkey right now are devoted to maintaining the 1.7 >> branch with security and stability updates.
> Asa, I think almost everyone knows where seamonkey stands in terms of > priority, but I think the question of "will there be a 1.8 final > release" needs to be answered in a very direct and simply way: > "yes", "no", or "we haven't decided yet"?
This would be less of an issue if the roadmap document wasn't 2 years out of date (with a "temporary" note promising an update which is 5 months out of date).
Having said that, the roadmap document was updated (in November, prior to Asa's original blog comment) to say that 1.7 would be the "final stable branch". As I said elsewhere in this thread, if 1.7 is to be the final stable branch, it would make a 1.8 release a bit of an orphan, with no 1.9 or 1.8.1 to move up to in the event of security issues.
Michael Lefevre wrote: > As I said elsewhere in this thread, if 1.7 is to be the final > stable branch, it would make a 1.8 release a bit of an orphan, with no > 1.9 or 1.8.1 to move up to in the event of security issues.
As I read "stable" as meaning "long lived", being MAS v1.0.x, v1.4.x, v1.7.x, I understand easyly that the following "stable" release(s) is FF+TB v1.0.x, and so on.
Yet, releasing new MAS "end-user(developer/tester, I know !) oriented, but not intended to be long lived", like v1.8b2, _v1.8f_, v1.9a, v1.9b, would still be appreciated...
Gervase Markham wrote: > *Firefox 1.1* > - ben, chofmann, scott going to grind out the plan for 1.1 tomorrow > - Try and predict when the work will be done to get a branch date
Will be there new QA team for this release? Or could we hope for any improvement in comparsion with 1.0.1 release problems and 1.7.5 released regressions?
> - Aiming for June 1st, but this may not be realistic
Define realistic plan, then term and finish work in time. I personally won't see again tragicomedy of last year, when date of Firefox final release was running away nearly as fast as time. MF already started to push term of Firefox 1.1, actually from March to June. Users are asking on this term and will be bad to lie them again in good faith, that MF has already experience with terms.
On 2005-03-06, Serge GAUTHERIE <gauth...@noos.fr> wrote:
> Michael Lefevre wrote:
>> As I said elsewhere in this thread, if 1.7 is to be the final >> stable branch, it would make a 1.8 release a bit of an orphan, with no >> 1.9 or 1.8.1 to move up to in the event of security issues.
> As I read "stable" as meaning "long lived", being MAS v1.0.x, v1.4.x, > v1.7.x, > I understand easyly that the following "stable" release(s) is FF+TB > v1.0.x, and so on.
> Yet, releasing new MAS "end-user(developer/tester, I know !) oriented, > but not intended to be long lived", like v1.8b2, _v1.8f_, v1.9a, v1.9b, > would still be appreciated...
I don't really see how they can do that... if they release a 1.8 final, 1.7 users will move to it. If it's going to be for developers and testers only, those people could just grab a nightly build from the 1.8 branch.
>> Frankly, the suite may best be served by getting it into the hands of >> people who actually want it to be the 'main' product...
> Absolutely. Do you have people in mind who have time to do this? If > so, I'd love to know who they are. They are sorely needed.
> -Boris
Without me knowing well what is involved in "pushing out a release" I cannot comit myself, though Suite is my, "main product" ;-) And if I am needed to get a 1.8final for others, I would help best I can.
>Frankly, the suite may best be served by getting it into the hands of >people who actually want it to be the 'main' product...which you guys >by your own admission, don't.
Why don't you and others, who are not satisfied with the road that the MoFo has taken, get your act together and *DO* something.
I always hear you guys clamoring how bad the MoFo is and so on, but nobody actually does something. This will have to change if the Suite should have a future.
Simon -- Default QA Contact Firefox - Menus/Toolbars/Installer My Mozilla blog: http://www.babylonsounds.com/blog.html Join us on Bugday: Every Tuesday from 10 AM - 6 PM PST in the #mozillazine channel on irc.mozilla.org
Michael Lefevre wrote: > On 2005-03-06, Serge GAUTHERIE <gauth...@noos.fr> wrote:
>>Michael Lefevre wrote:
>>>As I said elsewhere in this thread, if 1.7 is to be the final >>>stable branch, it would make a 1.8 release a bit of an orphan, with no >>>1.9 or 1.8.1 to move up to in the event of security issues.
>>As I read "stable" as meaning "long lived", being MAS v1.0.x, v1.4.x, >>v1.7.x, >>I understand easyly that the following "stable" release(s) is FF+TB >>v1.0.x, and so on.
>>Yet, releasing new MAS "end-user(developer/tester, I know !) oriented, >>but not intended to be long lived", like v1.8b2, _v1.8f_, v1.9a, v1.9b, >>would still be appreciated...
> I don't really see how they can do that... if they release a 1.8 final, > 1.7 users will move to it. If it's going to be for developers and testers > only, those people could just grab a nightly build from the 1.8 branch.
I also thought "stable" as meaning "long lived" like 1.0.x, 1.4.x, 1.7.x, but we still had 1.2.x, 1.3.x, 1.5.x, 1.6.x, official releases.
Simon Paquet wrote: > Why don't you and others, who are not satisfied with the road that the > MoFo has taken, get your act together and *DO* something. > See also http://www.steelgryphon.com/blog/index.php?p=32 > I always hear you guys clamoring how bad the MoFo is and so on, but > nobody actually does something. This will have to change if the Suite > should have a future.
Simon, any tip for non-developers? Should I sold house, car etc. and pay some developer? =) I do sometimes bug triage and I'm active in Czech Mozilla project. I believe, that my involvement is small help to Mozilla world, but it doesn't help to save Seamonkey, my most used application.
For others, note comment by Bernd bellow Mike's spot.
Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: > Without me knowing well what is involved in "pushing out a release"
At least:
1) Tagging the trunk at some point when it's stable (coordinating this with other trunk Gecko/etc consumers, one hopes). 2) Lots of organized and thorough testing of the branch you created. 3) Filing bugs based on the results of that testing. 4) Getting said bugs fixed on that branch. 5) Writing release notes. 6) Creating builds from the branch. 7) Pushing those builds to the FTP server. 8) Announcing the release.
Asa, please chime in if I missed something through ignorance?
I suspect step #2 is somewhat time-consuming, as are step #4 and step #5.
>> I don't really see how they can do that... if they release a 1.8 final, >> 1.7 users will move to it. If it's going to be for developers and >> testers >> only, those people could just grab a nightly build from the 1.8 branch.
> I also thought "stable" as meaning "long lived" like 1.0.x, 1.4.x, > 1.7.x, but we still had 1.2.x, 1.3.x, 1.5.x, 1.6.x, official releases.
Exactly !
There are two main issues about a (alpha/beta/final) release versus a nightly:
1) advertising: which could be very reduced (as it is already), and bear a clear statement about MAS v1.7.x and FF+TB v1.0.x status toward "end-users".
2) freezing the tree, testing and fixing it: which is what those of us who still prefer to stick to MAS for the time being are looking for.
