> On 17/09/2011 02:23, Josh Aas wrote:
>> Our transition to releasing every six weeks went really well. We're
>> getting fixes to users much more quickly than we used to
> I think how well it went is arguable. Getting some stuff to some users faster is good, but it shouldn't be the only goal. Only around two thirds of Firefox users are on Firefox 5/6/7.
> If you wanted to really speed things up, instead of cutting the cycle to 5 weeks, why not cut out a channel and go straight from what is now aurora to release? That's 6 weeks faster, with less switches.
FYI, it has been a success when you look at use. Of course there are still some issues we need to smooth over--most of which involve 3rd parties.
The reason we "only" have 2/3rds is we haven't pulled our big lever (prompt 3.6 users to update). We will be doing so soon and 3.6 will disappear weeks after. Firefox 4 is close to what we consider "dead" and dropping.
This sort of stuff is what I'll be talking about and making clear in the coming weeks.
I already expressed my general feeling about cutting out a channel and hope my posts/videos in the coming weeks will make it clear.
I also want to note we have only released *one* update in the new process (Firefox 6). Firefox 5 was a quarter after 4 and didn't have all the overlapping, etc. I don't want us to prematurely optimize or declare success/failure. We're still figuring out how to measure what we need to, if what we are measuring will naturally change over time, etc.