diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20120113/0247fcec')
| -rw-r--r-- | zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20120113/0247fcec/attachment-0001.html | 7 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20120113/0247fcec/attachment.html | 7 |
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 <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>
\ 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 <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>
\ No newline at end of file |