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
tb-planning
Home
About this group
Join this group
Message from discussion Thunderbird's Rapid Release Specifics
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
 
Mark Banner  
View profile  
 More options Aug 8 2011, 10:10 am
From: Mark Banner <mban...@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 15:10:33 +0100
Local: Mon, Aug 8 2011 10:10 am
Subject: Re: Thunderbird's Rapid Release Specifics
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

On 04/08/2011 17:30, Kent James wrote:

> Overall, an excellent document. My only requests are that you add a
> plan for the timing of increments of the allowable Thunderbird
> revisions on AMO, and that you be explicit about the allowable timing
> of changes to interfaces.

So I think for the interfaces I've already covered them in the "What
happens where?" section. Aurora is generally stable (i.e. we may have to
change something if we need to back out). Beta is stable for add-on
compatibility.

There's going to be a separate plan that I'm drawing up somewhere on the
specific timings, although once I have a bit more info on the FF
process, I'll add a note about roughly when we add n.* versions.

> For me, the AMO revision allowed is still an issue that is not being
> done as I would wish. A binary extension such as mine should ideally
> do their version updates in the aurora time scale and get reviewed
> (all of which can take many weeks), so that it is ready for use when
> beta comes out. (Of course this is only doable if you are disciplined
> about not doing interface changes late in the aurora timescale). So
> when beta releases, AMO should already be allowing compatibility with
> it. But right now for example, with aurora at 7, 7.0 is not an allowed
> AMO TB version. A binary extension does not want to declare
> compatibility with the allowed 8.0a1. If you wait until after beta is
> released to update AMO, then at the (automatic) user beta updates,
> your extensions are guaranteed to be incompatible, regardless of how
> diligent the extension author is.

I've not been able to confirm this, but my understanding was that binary
extensions would have to be recompiled against the beta version even if
they were compatible on aurora, as some of the stabilisation of aurora
may require it. I may have miss-understood that and I've also can't find
the reference :-(

Generally what I expect us to be doing is to migrate a release to
aurora, and after a week or two of it being there, we'll add the major
version to AMO and do the automatic compatibility bump. This should
hopefully mean that we're confident with the interface stability but
also give time for extension authors to adapt before we hit beta.

The 7.0 and 7.* have now been added to AMO, it was a slight oversight
that this hadn't happened earlier.

Mark.

  smime.p7s
5K Download

_______________________________________________
tb-planning mailing list
tb-plann...@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning


 
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
©2013 Google