1
2
3
4
5
6
7
|
<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span><br></span></div><div><br></div> <div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Claire Robinson <eeeemail@gmail.com><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> mageia-dev@mageia.org <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Friday, January 13, 2012 6:45 AM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Mageia-dev] FireFox ESR <= we should totally go for this wrt stable releases<br> </font> </div> <br>
On 13/01/12 11:37, Michael Scherer wrote:<br>> Le vendredi 13 janvier 2012 à 11:21 +0000, Claire Robinson a écrit :<br>>> On 13/01/12 09:36, nicolas vigier wrote:<br>>>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2012, Sander Lepik wrote:<br>>>><br>>>>> 13.01.2012 03:20, Maarten Vanraes kirjutas:<br>>>>>> see <a href="https://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2012/01/10/delivering-a-mozilla-firefox-" target="_blank">https://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2012/01/10/delivering-a-mozilla-firefox-</a><br>>>>>> extended-support-release/<br>>>>>> see <a href="https://wiki.mozilla.org/images/9/9d/Esr-release-overview.png" target="_blank">https://wiki.mozilla.org/images/9/9d/Esr-release-overview.png</a><br>>>>>><br>>>>>> ESR is a 1y extended supported release...<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> looking at the image we'd be having supported versions for our 9month
release<br>>>>>> schedule every time... we should totally use this release and not go towards<br>>>>>> FF11 for our release.<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> We've been complaining about the too quick release schedule... this is our<br>>>>>> chance!<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> ( i think if the FF maintainer wishes, he could also do backports of the<br>>>>>> regular releases... )<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> i'm hoping everyone agrees? including FF maintainer?<br>>>>> I don't agree. But i'm not the maintainer.<br>>>>><br>>>>> Why not?<br>>>>> * Since fx10 all non-binary extensions are compatible by default (so our<br>>>>> main problem goes away).<br>>>>> * fx10 in 6 months is dead old for users POV. Many unhappy users. Lower<br>>>>> popularity for Mageia.
(Ubuntu AFAIK is going with fast schedule).<br>>>>> * We will miss too many new and cool features.<br>>>>> * When we release<br>>>><br>>>> We could say the same about any other software. Firefox was an exception<br>>>> on updates policy because there was no other choice. But there's no<br>>>> reason to keep it as an exception when they provide a supported version.<br>>>><br>>><br>>> With 12 months support more often than not it would need updating in the<br>>> lifespan of the Mageia 9 month release anyway.<br>>><br>>> Firefox is one of those programs that people like to be bang up to date<br>>> with.<br>><br>> All softwares are one of those programs. The only one that some non<br>> technical users do not want to be updated are those that they do not<br>> know, like glibc, python, perl. But still, there is people that want it<br>> up to
date, so firefox is nothing special.<br>><br>>> It is 'bragging rights' to ship with the latest and something<br>>> reviewers always give version numbers of along with libreoffice, kde, gnome.<br>><br>> Sure, and we neither update libreoffice, kde, gnome or the linux kernel.<br>> Some people do ( kde is upated by Fedora, as well as the linux kernel ).<br>> So that's a consistency issue, about what we promise to users.<br>><br>> Stability is just that, stuff that do not have interface changes every 6<br>> weeks, stuff that do not have slight mistranslation everytime string<br>> change, stuff that do not risk breaking software after every updates.<br>><br>>> I understand the arguments to go with the 12 months support but I think<br>>> for the reasons above we should stick with the normal release cycle or<br>>> maybe even offer both?<br>><br>> Offering both would mean to double our workload
of supporting firefox,<br>> and have no advantages by using the long supported release.<br>><br>> And that's rather useless from my point of view, if the goal is to<br>> reduce the workload. There is already enough work to support the<br>> distribution.<br><br>My meaning was that it isn't just general software. As I said, it is one <br>of those packages that reviewers quote version numbers and users expect <br>to be updated.<br><br>IMO we should be on the latest version but I really do understand the <br>arguments against it so I understand why you disagree :)<br><br>This really doesn't make sense. The browser is our interface to the internet. I (as a user) feel a need to have the latest version of my browser complete with all security patches. I really couldn't care less if I have the latest gnome or kde. Surfing the net using a browser with known security issues bothers me. I think this is why so many people consider firefox to be an
exception to the rule. Where most software that is older is considered to be more stable, when talking about a browser it is generally the opposite. It would be nice to at least give the users a choice, maybe have the LTR version as well as the latest release available. I have seen other distros provide chrome stable, testing, and unstable. Allowing the user to choose which version they are most comfortable with. <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br> </div> </div> </div></body></html>
|
