[Mageia-dev] FireFox ESR <= we should totally go for this wrt stable releases

Fri Jan 13 12:45:00 CET 2012

On 13/01/12 11:37, Michael Scherer wrote:
+> Le vendredi 13 janvier 2012 à 11:21 +0000, Claire Robinson a écrit :
+>> On 13/01/12 09:36, nicolas vigier wrote:
+>>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2012, Sander Lepik wrote:
+>>>
+>>>> 13.01.2012 03:20, Maarten Vanraes kirjutas:
+>>>>> see https://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2012/01/10/delivering-a-mozilla-firefox-
+>>>>> extended-support-release/
+>>>>> see https://wiki.mozilla.org/images/9/9d/Esr-release-overview.png
+>>>>>
+>>>>> ESR is a 1y extended supported release...
+>>>>>
+>>>>> looking at the image we'd be having supported versions for our 9month release
+>>>>> schedule every time... we should totally use this release and not go towards
+>>>>> FF11 for our release.
+>>>>>
+>>>>> We've been complaining about the too quick release schedule... this is our
+>>>>> chance!
+>>>>>
+>>>>> ( i think if the FF maintainer wishes, he could also do backports of the
+>>>>> regular releases... )
+>>>>>
+>>>>> i'm hoping everyone agrees? including FF maintainer?
+>>>> I don't agree. But i'm not the maintainer.
+>>>>
+>>>> Why not?
+>>>> * Since fx10 all non-binary extensions are compatible by default (so our
+>>>> main problem goes away).
+>>>> * fx10 in 6 months is dead old for users POV. Many unhappy users. Lower
+>>>> popularity for Mageia. (Ubuntu AFAIK is going with fast schedule).
+>>>> * We will miss too many new and cool features.
+>>>> * When we release
+>>>
+>>> We could say the same about any other software. Firefox was an exception
+>>> on updates policy because there was no other choice. But there's no
+>>> reason to keep it as an exception when they provide a supported version.
+>>>
+>>
+>> With 12 months support more often than not it would need updating in the
+>> lifespan of the Mageia 9 month release anyway.
+>>
+>> Firefox is one of those programs that people like to be bang up to date
+>> with.
+>
+> All softwares are one of those programs. The only one that some non
+> technical users do not want to be updated are those that they do not
+> know, like glibc, python, perl. But still, there is people that want it
+> up to date, so firefox is nothing special.
+>
+>> It is 'bragging rights' to ship with the latest and something
+>> reviewers always give version numbers of along with libreoffice, kde, gnome.
+>
+> Sure, and we neither update libreoffice, kde, gnome or the linux kernel.
+> Some people do ( kde is upated by Fedora, as well as the linux kernel ).
+> So that's a consistency issue, about what we promise to users.
+>
+> Stability is just that, stuff that do not have interface changes every 6
+> weeks, stuff that do not have slight mistranslation everytime string
+> change, stuff that do not risk breaking software after every updates.
+>
+>> I understand the arguments to go with the 12 months support but I think
+>> for the reasons above we should stick with the normal release cycle or
+>> maybe even offer both?
+>
+> Offering both would mean to double our workload of supporting firefox,
+> and have no advantages by using the long supported release.
+>
+> And that's rather useless from my point of view, if the goal is to
+> reduce the workload. There is already enough work to support the
+> distribution.
+
+My meaning was that it isn't just general software. As I said, it is one 
+of those packages that reviewers quote version numbers and users expect 
+to be updated.
+
+IMO we should be on the latest version but I really do understand the 
+arguments against it so I understand why you disagree :)
+