3 ms·
Your first comment implies you speak for all users; certainly you don't. Your second comment is antagonistically sarcastic. Your third comment is easy cynicis
by tasty_freeze 7y ago
Your first comment implies you speak for all users; certainly you don't.
Your second comment is antagonistically sarcastic.
Your third comment is easy cynicism. As a counterpoint, Firefox does put a lot of effort into stability, reducing CPU power (read the recent change on OSX in that regard). You seem to be suggesting a shorter release cycle will prevent them from continuing that work.
- acqq 7y ago> Your first comment implies It doesn't. > certainly you don't. I don't. I speak just for all the users that don't benefit from the more frequent release cycle. Note that the more frequent release cycle doesn't mean that any development will take less (especially absolute) time. It can even take more, as more frequent release cycles mean that administrative work related to every release increases. > You seem to be suggesting a shorter release cycle will prevent them from continuing that work. No. Again you construct what I haven't said, because you don't have valid arguments against what I've actually said. I'm claiming that the total work by both the developers inside of Mozilla and by all the users who have to respond to the event of the new release increases with this management decision. And I quote the argument of the management, written in the release, which I consider to be weak compared to the said costs: "Shorter release cycles provide greater flexibility to support product planning and priority changes due to business or market requirements"