summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20120113/0247fcec
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorNicolas Vigier <boklm@mageia.org>2013-04-14 13:46:12 +0000
committerNicolas Vigier <boklm@mageia.org>2013-04-14 13:46:12 +0000
commit1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0 (patch)
treeb175f9d5fcb107576dabc768e7bd04d4a3e491a0 /zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20120113/0247fcec
parentfa5098cf210b23ab4f419913e28af7b1b07dafb2 (diff)
downloadarchives-master.tar
archives-master.tar.gz
archives-master.tar.bz2
archives-master.tar.xz
archives-master.zip
Add zarb MLs html archivesHEADmaster
Diffstat (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20120113/0247fcec')
-rw-r--r--zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20120113/0247fcec/attachment-0001.html7
-rw-r--r--zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20120113/0247fcec/attachment.html7
2 files changed, 14 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20120113/0247fcec/attachment-0001.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20120113/0247fcec/attachment-0001.html
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..7153c5776
--- /dev/null
+++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20120113/0247fcec/attachment-0001.html
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+<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 &lt;eeeemail@gmail.com&gt;<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 &lt;= we should totally go for this wrt stable releases<br> </font> </div> <br>
+On 13/01/12 11:37, Michael Scherer wrote:<br>&gt; Le vendredi 13 janvier 2012 à 11:21 +0000, Claire Robinson a écrit :<br>&gt;&gt; On 13/01/12 09:36, nicolas vigier wrote:<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; On Fri, 13 Jan 2012, Sander Lepik wrote:<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; 13.01.2012 03:20, Maarten Vanraes kirjutas:<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; 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>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; extended-support-release/<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; 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>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; ESR is a 1y extended supported release...<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; looking at the image we'd be having supported versions for our 9month
+ release<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; schedule every time... we should totally use this release and not go towards<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; FF11 for our release.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; We've been complaining about the too quick release schedule... this is our<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; chance!<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; ( i think if the FF maintainer wishes, he could also do backports of the<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; regular releases... )<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; i'm hoping everyone agrees? including FF maintainer?<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; I don't agree. But i'm not the maintainer.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Why not?<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; * Since fx10 all non-binary extensions are compatible by default (so our<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; main problem goes away).<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; * fx10 in 6 months is dead old for users POV. Many unhappy users. Lower<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; popularity for Mageia.
+ (Ubuntu AFAIK is going with fast schedule).<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; * We will miss too many new and cool features.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; * When we release<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; We could say the same about any other software. Firefox was an exception<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; on updates policy because there was no other choice. But there's no<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; reason to keep it as an exception when they provide a supported version.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; With 12 months support more often than not it would need updating in the<br>&gt;&gt; lifespan of the Mageia 9 month release anyway.<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; Firefox is one of those programs that people like to be bang up to date<br>&gt;&gt; with.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; All softwares are one of those programs. The only one that some non<br>&gt; technical users do not want to be updated are those that they do not<br>&gt; know, like glibc, python, perl. But still, there is people that want it<br>&gt; up to
+ date, so firefox is nothing special.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; It is 'bragging rights' to ship with the latest and something<br>&gt;&gt; reviewers always give version numbers of along with libreoffice, kde, gnome.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Sure, and we neither update libreoffice, kde, gnome or the linux kernel.<br>&gt; Some people do ( kde is upated by Fedora, as well as the linux kernel ).<br>&gt; So that's a consistency issue, about what we promise to users.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Stability is just that, stuff that do not have interface changes every 6<br>&gt; weeks, stuff that do not have slight mistranslation everytime string<br>&gt; change, stuff that do not risk breaking software after every updates.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; I understand the arguments to go with the 12 months support but I think<br>&gt;&gt; for the reasons above we should stick with the normal release cycle or<br>&gt;&gt; maybe even offer both?<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Offering both would mean to double our workload
+ of supporting firefox,<br>&gt; and have no advantages by using the long supported release.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; And that's rather useless from my point of view, if the goal is to<br>&gt; reduce the workload. There is already enough work to support the<br>&gt; 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> \ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20120113/0247fcec/attachment.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20120113/0247fcec/attachment.html
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..7153c5776
--- /dev/null
+++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20120113/0247fcec/attachment.html
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+<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 &lt;eeeemail@gmail.com&gt;<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 &lt;= we should totally go for this wrt stable releases<br> </font> </div> <br>
+On 13/01/12 11:37, Michael Scherer wrote:<br>&gt; Le vendredi 13 janvier 2012 à 11:21 +0000, Claire Robinson a écrit :<br>&gt;&gt; On 13/01/12 09:36, nicolas vigier wrote:<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; On Fri, 13 Jan 2012, Sander Lepik wrote:<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; 13.01.2012 03:20, Maarten Vanraes kirjutas:<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; 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>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; extended-support-release/<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; 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>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; ESR is a 1y extended supported release...<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; looking at the image we'd be having supported versions for our 9month
+ release<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; schedule every time... we should totally use this release and not go towards<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; FF11 for our release.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; We've been complaining about the too quick release schedule... this is our<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; chance!<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; ( i think if the FF maintainer wishes, he could also do backports of the<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; regular releases... )<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; i'm hoping everyone agrees? including FF maintainer?<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; I don't agree. But i'm not the maintainer.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Why not?<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; * Since fx10 all non-binary extensions are compatible by default (so our<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; main problem goes away).<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; * fx10 in 6 months is dead old for users POV. Many unhappy users. Lower<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; popularity for Mageia.
+ (Ubuntu AFAIK is going with fast schedule).<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; * We will miss too many new and cool features.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; * When we release<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; We could say the same about any other software. Firefox was an exception<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; on updates policy because there was no other choice. But there's no<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; reason to keep it as an exception when they provide a supported version.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; With 12 months support more often than not it would need updating in the<br>&gt;&gt; lifespan of the Mageia 9 month release anyway.<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; Firefox is one of those programs that people like to be bang up to date<br>&gt;&gt; with.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; All softwares are one of those programs. The only one that some non<br>&gt; technical users do not want to be updated are those that they do not<br>&gt; know, like glibc, python, perl. But still, there is people that want it<br>&gt; up to
+ date, so firefox is nothing special.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; It is 'bragging rights' to ship with the latest and something<br>&gt;&gt; reviewers always give version numbers of along with libreoffice, kde, gnome.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Sure, and we neither update libreoffice, kde, gnome or the linux kernel.<br>&gt; Some people do ( kde is upated by Fedora, as well as the linux kernel ).<br>&gt; So that's a consistency issue, about what we promise to users.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Stability is just that, stuff that do not have interface changes every 6<br>&gt; weeks, stuff that do not have slight mistranslation everytime string<br>&gt; change, stuff that do not risk breaking software after every updates.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; I understand the arguments to go with the 12 months support but I think<br>&gt;&gt; for the reasons above we should stick with the normal release cycle or<br>&gt;&gt; maybe even offer both?<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Offering both would mean to double our workload
+ of supporting firefox,<br>&gt; and have no advantages by using the long supported release.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; And that's rather useless from my point of view, if the goal is to<br>&gt; reduce the workload. There is already enough work to support the<br>&gt; 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> \ No newline at end of file