32-bit developer edition?

Ben Kelly

unread,

Jun 3, 2016, 1:40:43 AM6/3/16

to dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org

Hi all,

I noticed recently that all of the available download links for dev edition
point to the 32-bit installer. Is there a reason for this?

Given we are talking about how to upgrade existing users to 64-bit it would
seem good to update the download links for new installs.

Thanks.

Ben

Jet Villegas

unread,

Jun 3, 2016, 2:45:31 AM6/3/16

to Ben Kelly, dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org

We should offer both.

--Jet

> _______________________________________________
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org <javascript:;>
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>

Ben Kelly

unread,

Jun 3, 2016, 10:00:09 AM6/3/16

to Jethro Villegas, dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org

On Jun 3, 2016 2:15 AM, "Jet Villegas" <jvil...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> We should offer both.

If we get a net reduction in OOMs with 64-bit it seems to me we should make
that the default download link.

In any case, we're not showing a 64-bit link anywhere now. Who should I
pester or where should I file a bug to get that fixed?

Thanks.

Ben

Lawrence Mandel

unread,

Jun 3, 2016, 10:20:59 AM6/3/16

to Ben Kelly, Javaun Moradi, dev-platform, Jethro Villegas

+ Javaun who should be able to fill in details about timing and what we
want to do with Win64 and why

> _______________________________________________
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org

> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>

Mike Hoye

unread,

Jun 3, 2016, 11:09:20 AM6/3/16

to dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org

On 2016-06-03 8:51 AM, Ben Kelly wrote:
> In any case, we're not showing a 64-bit link anywhere now. Who should
> I pester or where should I file a bug to get that fixed?

Mozilla.org :: webdev

- mhoye

Javaun Moradi

unread,

Jun 3, 2016, 11:10:17 AM6/3/16

to Lawrence Mandel, dev-platform, Bryan Clark, Ben Kelly, Jethro Villegas

+Clarkbw, who runs Dev Edition.

Expansion of 64 bit was on hold pending the release of 47, where we had some critical sandboxing issues fixed and (conveniently) the Widevine CDM also hit that timeframe for video support.

It’s an interesting idea to hit developers, who are a bit savvier. We assume elimination of small OOM and JS performance gains, security overall will be a tradeoff.

We need more users in-field before we start rolling win64 out by default to normal people. DevEdition is a potentially compelling hook. We were going to offer 64 selectively on the download page to some users in an A/B test to try to get numbers up. Ideally, we’d be able to sniff who could run it, since we don’t have a stub installer.

> On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:20 AM, Lawrence Mandel <lma...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> + Javaun who should be able to fill in details about timing and what we want to do with Win64 and why
>

> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Ben Kelly <bke...@mozilla.com <mailto:bke...@mozilla.com>> wrote:

> On Jun 3, 2016 2:15 AM, "Jet Villegas" <jvil...@mozilla.com <mailto:jvil...@mozilla.com>> wrote:
> >
> > We should offer both.
>
> If we get a net reduction in OOMs with 64-bit it seems to me we should make
> that the default download link.
>

> In any case, we're not showing a 64-bit link anywhere now. Who should I
> pester or where should I file a bug to get that fixed?
>

> Thanks.
>
> Ben
> _______________________________________________
> dev-platform mailing list

> dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org <mailto:dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org>
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform <https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform>
>

Jared Wein

unread,

Jun 6, 2016, 1:48:39 PM6/6/16

to Javaun Moradi, Ben Kelly, Bryan Clark, dev-platform, Lawrence Mandel, Jethro Villegas

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Javaun Moradi <jmo...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> +Clarkbw, who runs Dev Edition.
>
> Expansion of 64 bit was on hold pending the release of 47, where we had
> some critical sandboxing issues fixed and (conveniently) the Widevine CDM
> also hit that timeframe for video support.
>
> It’s an interesting idea to hit developers, who are a bit savvier. We
> assume elimination of small OOM and JS performance gains, security overall
> will be a tradeoff.
>

> We need more users in-field before we start rolling win64 out by default
> to normal people. DevEdition is a potentially compelling hook. We were
> going to offer 64 selectively on the download page to some users in an A/B
> test to try to get numbers up. Ideally, we’d be able to sniff who could run
> it, since we don’t have a stub installer.
>

We shouldn't hold back on providing a link to 64-bit Dev Edition users en
masse. I worry that running an A/B test will slow down the full release
without telling us much of anything that we don't already know.

The user agent string says if the system is 64-bit, so sniffing is already
possible.

Ben, can you file the bug in Mozilla.org::webdev to get the link added to
the download page?

Thanks,
Jared

Ben Kelly

unread,

Jun 6, 2016, 2:00:01 PM6/6/16

to Jared Wein, Bryan Clark, Javaun Moradi, dev-platform, Lawrence Mandel, Jethro Villegas

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Jared Wein <ja...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> We shouldn't hold back on providing a link to 64-bit Dev Edition users en
> masse. I worry that running an A/B test will slow down the full release
> without telling us much of anything that we don't already know.
>
> The user agent string says if the system is 64-bit, so sniffing is already
> possible.
>
> Ben, can you file the bug in Mozilla.org::webdev to get the link added to
> the download page?
>

Sure:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1278315