Firefox 3.5 vs. Firefox 3.1

[beel...@gmail.com]

Dear Mozilla team,
I have got just one question:
I have seen that you talk [1] about version 3.1 of Firefox and the
successing version 4.0, what about your plans to call the successor of
Version 3.0 Firefox 3.5 as it was described on the figure [2] (from
the roadmap wiki page: [3])
you have planned the version 3.5 to be based on Gecko 1.9.1.x
Have you already decided how to call this version 3.1 or 3.5, I hope
you also want to avoid the version number chaos like with the versions
1.1 1.4 1.5 ...
I think it will be better to use the number 3.5 instead of 3.1 if it
will be necessary to update the addon api (reserving the version
3.1.x, 3.2.x for that purpose), wasn't it the reason why you have used
the four part version number format in 1.5.x.y and 2.0.x.y?
Regards
Andy
__
[1] http://tinyurl.com/6pbwqk
[2] http://tinyurl.com/583s57
[3] http://wiki.mozilla.org/ReleaseRoadmap

[Dave Townsend]

beel...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dear Mozilla team,
> I have got just one question:
> I have seen that you talk [1] about version 3.1 of Firefox and the
> successing version 4.0, what about your plans to call the successor of
> Version 3.0 Firefox 3.5 as it was described on the figure [2] (from
> the roadmap wiki page: [3])
> you have planned the version 3.5 to be based on Gecko 1.9.1.x
> Have you already decided how to call this version 3.1 or 3.5, I hope
> you also want to avoid the version number chaos like with the versions
> 1.1 1.4 1.5 ...
> I think it will be better to use the number 3.5 instead of 3.1 if it
> will be necessary to update the addon api (reserving the version
> 3.1.x, 3.2.x for that purpose), wasn't it the reason why you have used
> the four part version number format in 1.5.x.y and 2.0.x.y?
> Regards
> Andy

I think you are reading too much into the talk that is going around.
Although we are talking about a "3.1" as being the next firefox release
and a "4.0" as being the next major release to come off of Moz2, the
actual version numbers are likely not decided, it is just useful to have
one for now to talk about. It also turns out to be easier to increase
the version to what you are really going to use later than decrease it
which tends to mess up extension authors and nightly testers.

Dave

[Robert Accettura]

This decision is generally made later in the development process. There was
originally a Firefox 1.1 on the roadmap, but that was canned and morphed
into 1.5 due to the larger changes being made to both API, Gecko upgrade,
and overall feature set.

It could in theory be scrapped if Firefox 3.0 holds up and Firefox 4.0 stays
on schedule, that way more resources can go into Firefox 4.0 / Mozilla2.
Though I suspect Mozilla2's ambitious plans will take long enough to warrant
an intermediate release (which is why it's on the roadmap).

This discussion is premature as the product hasn't been that clearly defined
other than the likely use of Gecko 1.9.1.x. Versioning not only effects
api, but marketing and downstream testing. For minor milestones, upgrades
tend to get less testing before they are deployed across offices and
school. For major releases, more testing is necessary hence a delay in
adoption.

Version numbers don't define the product. The product defines the version
number. It will be versioned based on what the release turns out to be,
which will be based on the needs of users and the community, as well as the
status of Firefox 4.

--
Robert Accettura
rob...@accettura.com

[Mike Connor]

FWIW, we have no intention of returning to the 4 digit numbering. Based on
the current planned scope of the next release, its all but certain that
we'll call it 3.1.

If we need to bump api compat in a stable release before 3.1 ships, we'd
just bump from 3.1 to 3.2. We've never done so though, and in any case once
3.1 ships, 3.0 has a six month support timeframe before it reaches end of
life. If we needed to drop api compat during _that_ timeframe, due to
something major, its highly unlikely that we'd rev 3.0 vs. simply bumping
everyone to the same 3.2, rather than having them go through two api
bustages inside of six months.

- Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: dev-planni...@lists.mozilla.org
<dev-planni...@lists.mozilla.org>
To: dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org <dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org>
Sent: Tue May 20 02:35:33 2008
Subject: Re: Firefox 3.5 vs. Firefox 3.1

beel...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dear Mozilla team,
> I have got just one question:
> I have seen that you talk [1] about version 3.1 of Firefox and the
> successing version 4.0, what about your plans to call the successor of
> Version 3.0 Firefox 3.5 as it was described on the figure [2] (from
> the roadmap wiki page: [3])
> you have planned the version 3.5 to be based on Gecko 1.9.1.x
> Have you already decided how to call this version 3.1 or 3.5, I hope
> you also want to avoid the version number chaos like with the versions
> 1.1 1.4 1.5 ...
> I think it will be better to use the number 3.5 instead of 3.1 if it
> will be necessary to update the addon api (reserving the version
> 3.1.x, 3.2.x for that purpose), wasn't it the reason why you have used
> the four part version number format in 1.5.x.y and 2.0.x.y?
> Regards
> Andy

I think you are reading too much into the talk that is going around.

Although we are talking about a "3.1" as being the next firefox release
and a "4.0" as being the next major release to come off of Moz2, the
actual version numbers are likely not decided, it is just useful to have
one for now to talk about. It also turns out to be easier to increase
the version to what you are really going to use later than decrease it
which tends to mess up extension authors and nightly testers.

Dave
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning