> 1) If we update them from 3.6 -> 12 -> 13, they'll remain "safe" via security fixes but may notices "glitches" due to untested feature code on Win2k.
Once users are on FF12, we have the ability to prevent Win2k or XP SP1 users from updating any further and can also communicate options to them for staying secure. They will not be updated to FF13 and are blocked from running the installer.
> 2) If we update them from 3.6 -> 12 and given them no option to upgrade, other than upgrading Windows, does that turn 12 into an LTS release we need to support with security fixes?
3.6 users on Win2k or XP SP1 will be on an insecure version of Firefox if they don't upgrade to FF12. Upgrading 3.6 users to FF12 allows us to have targeted communications to Win2K/XP users about how they can receive future Firefox updates.
> I know this has been discussed and decided against in meetings already, but I thought I'd bring it up one last time. What's the rationale behind for not pushing the final stragglers (those who opt out from Firefox 12 and 13) to ESR? This would at least keep the safe and secure for another few months (until ESR17).
This has been discussed on a few lists already, for reference here's one example:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.planning/ES9gyr0mMEc. And an excerpt from that discussion:
> Even still, I think there's more concern here than just messaging. We would be very quickly changing the scope of what ESR was envisioned as. I imagine this would have a larger effect on support, as these users would not have corporate IT around to help them work through any issues (thus pushing support onto SUMO).
Moving 3.6 users to the ESR would change the scope significantly for support and engineering. Supporting organizations separately is a much more manageable task than carrying on with two supported user branches.
-Alex
On Mar 29, 2012, at 10:40 AM, Anthony Hughes wrote:
> On 03/29/2012 09:26 AM, Alex Keybl wrote:
>> Once on FF12, they'll either receive an automatic update to FF13 or a message explaining that they need to upgrade their version of Windows
> So what happens to the user running on Win2k who updates from 3.6 (supported) -> 12 (supported) -> 13 (unsupported)? Will Firefox 13 even work on Win2k? Will it work but it could have untested problems? If not, then I foresee a couple of different scenarios...
>
> 1) If we update them from 3.6 -> 12 -> 13, they'll remain "safe" via security fixes but may notices "glitches" due to untested feature code on Win2k.
>
> 2) If we update them from 3.6 -> 12 and given them no option to upgrade, other than upgrading Windows, does that turn 12 into an LTS release we need to support with security fixes?
>
> Sidebar...
> I know this has been discussed and decided against in meetings already, but I thought I'd bring it up one last time. What's the rationale behind for not pushing the final stragglers (those who opt out from Firefox 12 and 13) to ESR? This would at least keep the safe and secure for another few months (until ESR17).
>
> That said, it could be argued that if people haven't upgraded yet (we'll have given them 10 major releases to update to since 4.0), they likely won't. That said, it could be argued that we should "brick" their Firefox installation to keep them and the web safe.
>