5 ms·
This seems like a good change. For Chrome, I only use Canary + stable. And having beta as a period for a wider audience with relatively lower bug tolerance to c
by domenicd 10y ago
This seems like a good change. For Chrome, I only use Canary + stable. And having beta as a period for a wider audience with relatively lower bug tolerance to catch things before they hit stable makes sense. But Chrome's Dev channel/Firefox's Aurora never made much sense to me.
I wish Firefox Nightly automatically did the new-profile thing like Firefox Dev Edition/Chrome Canary does, though. Not being able to run them side-by-side out of the box is quite annoying. (Maybe this has been fixed since I originally installed Nightly?)
One thing that I'm having a hard time understanding from the article is whether this means Firefox is moving from a 18-week major version cycle to a 12-week major version cycle? Because features will no longer need the extra 6 weeks in Aurora? "Faster release cycles for platform features" kind of implies this, but it isn't stated anywhere explicitly.
- lizzard 10y agoWe have always had the potential to move that fast, but you can think of the difference here for features as: rather than scrambling to bring features to release faster if they're ready, we can choose to hold some features back for an extra 6 weeks in Nightly, for more development if they need it.
- domenicd 10y agoThis is the same kind of confusing stuff as in the article. Give it to me straight: when I upgrade stable Firefox to version N, how many more weeks will I wait for a stable update to version N+1?
- Dylan16807 10y agoThe same, a month and a half. But if you're waiting for a feature that was just finished to get into stable, that time is faster. You will only have to wait for N+2 instead of N+3.
- lizzard 10y agoStable Firefox will still update around every six weeks, the same as before. You could also think of the change like this: if you report a bug in the current release version, and someone fixes that bug in Nightly, the fix will end up in a new release 6 weeks faster than before.
- hackuser 10y ago> I wish Firefox Nightly automatically did the new-profile thing like Firefox Dev Edition/Chrome Canary does, though. Not being able to run them side-by-side out of the box is quite annoying. I don't know about Nightly or the most recent release, but the following has always worked to open the profile manager and setup a new profile: firefox.exe -p If you want to run two instances of Firefox side-by-side, start the first instance and then use the following command (again, untested on the latest releases and on Nightly): firefox.exe -p -no-remote
- glandium 10y agoPlease use --new-instance instead of --no-remote.
- friday20 10y agoNot quite sure about this advice. MDN documentation on the command-line options[0] currently references a WONTFIX'ed bug[1] - that option does not work on Windows systems. Unlike --no-remote which works consistently across platforms. [0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Command_Line_Options#-new-instance https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Command_Lin... [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=855899 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=855899
- kbrosnan 10y agoGlandium is a trusted source of Mozilla command line information. https://glandium.org/about/ https://glandium.org/about/
- glandium 10y agoActually friday20 might be right on this one. The remote code is very different across platforms. The way it works on non-Windows/non-Mac is very different, and it's possible that --new-instance doesn't work as expected there. On Linux/BSD/etc (everything that uses X11), --new-instance should be prefered.