5 ms·

I don’t really like these quick release cycles. When things get released every year or half year I have the time to read about the changes but if I work with se

I don’t really like these quick release cycles. When things get released every year or half year I have the time to read about the changes but if I work with several packages that release all the time I don’t even have the time to read about the changes. I also think that quality tends to suffer. Over the last two years windows 10 has released several buggy updates that caused our in house apps to stop working.

lizzard 7y ago
Firefox ESR exists for exactly this reason. It gets periodic security fixes but not much else and you can stay on the same major version for a year or so. https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/enterprise/ https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/enterprise/
- flukus 7y ago
  > Extended Support Release (ESR): receives major updates on average every 42 weeks It feels like they're just taking the piss when the life cycle of an extended support release is just 42 weeks. Still a step in the right direction though.
  - roca 7y ago
    The lifetime of each ESR is one year, there's an intentional 10 week overlap.
bengoodger 7y ago
Quality can be worse in a long-time cycle project: - Engineers are motivated to slam their feature in, because if they miss the train the next one's not for 12 months. - You get one moment per year to connect with your customers & understand how well/not well your changes worked. This means either riskier things happen or that innovation slows to a crawl. My 2 cents, speaking from some experience working on long time cycle projects and shorter cycle projects.
- ratmice 7y ago
  I've been in both situations of missing the 12 month boat, and rushing to get something in before the boat leaves port, and it's terrible. that said I think 4 weeks is a real short release cycle. 3 months, so 4 releases a year -- one for each season. Would seem to strike a better balance.
  - masklinn 7y ago
    Firefox has been on a 6 weeks cycle for a few years now, clearly they found that short release suited them, and that it was if anything too long. Different strokes and all that.
  - dikei 7y ago
    It's not like features go straight from master -> release in 4 weeks. Changes have to go through developer-edition and beta channel first before landing in the release channel.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  Why cycles at all? Why not look at what features have been integrated, whether they make up a set that you want to release, and then release? Neither long cycles nor short cycles make any sense. Some features take a long time to develop, some take a short time to develop. Sometimes features that take a long time to develop aren't user-facing enough to be worth releasing for, and sometimes a quick fix has a huge impact that's worth a release, like a patch for a vulnerability that's actively being exploited by a spreading malware. Features simply don't line up with a single length of time. The problem isn't long or short cycles, it's cycles.
  - slimsag 7y ago
    Is "releasing when it's ready" basically what was done in the past for e.g. CD-distributed software? I imagine that could work well in some cases, but it also allows corporate bureaucracy and/or marketing teams to determine when things get released at larger scales and that might not be so ideal.
  - 7y ago
masklinn 7y ago
> I don’t really like these quick release cycles. When things get released every year or half year I have the time to read about the changes Use ESR, or only read release notes every 6 months. Short release cycles also mean much shorter release notes. The average FF changelog has a dozen minor items or so, it takes 5mn to go through it.
flukus 7y ago
Notice that almost all the positives of quick release cycles are about how they make it easier for developers? I think is telling of where tech culture is these days. IME frequent updates terrify non-technical users, any given update might change the UI, remove a feature the use or add some other complication (like simply not working) at an inopportune moment. Big fat updates give them a chance to prepare for these changes at a time of their choosing.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  That’s what I am thinking. I hate it when my browser or a phone app suddenly looks different without warning.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    Just got an Office 365 update. Suddenly all icons are different for no good reason and without warning.
    - flukus 7y ago
      Fortunately I don't do family tech support anymore, but that's exactly the sort of thing that would result in a panicked phone call and a user having to "learn it all over again". And that's for a purely cosmetic change.

lizzard 7y ago

Firefox ESR exists for exactly this reason. It gets periodic security fixes but not much else and you can stay on the same major version for a year or so. https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/enterprise/ https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/enterprise/

flukus 7y ago
> Extended Support Release (ESR): receives major updates on average every 42 weeks It feels like they're just taking the piss when the life cycle of an extended support release is just 42 weeks. Still a step in the right direction though.
- roca 7y ago
  The lifetime of each ESR is one year, there's an intentional 10 week overlap.

bengoodger 7y ago

Quality can be worse in a long-time cycle project: - Engineers are motivated to slam their feature in, because if they miss the train the next one's not for 12 months. - You get one moment per year to connect with your customers & understand how well/not well your changes worked. This means either riskier things happen or that innovation slows to a crawl. My 2 cents, speaking from some experience working on long time cycle projects and shorter cycle projects.

ratmice 7y ago
I've been in both situations of missing the 12 month boat, and rushing to get something in before the boat leaves port, and it's terrible. that said I think 4 weeks is a real short release cycle. 3 months, so 4 releases a year -- one for each season. Would seem to strike a better balance.
- masklinn 7y ago
  Firefox has been on a 6 weeks cycle for a few years now, clearly they found that short release suited them, and that it was if anything too long. Different strokes and all that.
- dikei 7y ago
  It's not like features go straight from master -> release in 4 weeks. Changes have to go through developer-edition and beta channel first before landing in the release channel.
kerkeslager 7y ago
Why cycles at all? Why not look at what features have been integrated, whether they make up a set that you want to release, and then release? Neither long cycles nor short cycles make any sense. Some features take a long time to develop, some take a short time to develop. Sometimes features that take a long time to develop aren't user-facing enough to be worth releasing for, and sometimes a quick fix has a huge impact that's worth a release, like a patch for a vulnerability that's actively being exploited by a spreading malware. Features simply don't line up with a single length of time. The problem isn't long or short cycles, it's cycles.
- slimsag 7y ago
  Is "releasing when it's ready" basically what was done in the past for e.g. CD-distributed software? I imagine that could work well in some cases, but it also allows corporate bureaucracy and/or marketing teams to determine when things get released at larger scales and that might not be so ideal.
- 7y ago

masklinn 7y ago

> I don’t really like these quick release cycles. When things get released every year or half year I have the time to read about the changes Use ESR, or only read release notes every 6 months. Short release cycles also mean much shorter release notes. The average FF changelog has a dozen minor items or so, it takes 5mn to go through it.

flukus 7y ago

Notice that almost all the positives of quick release cycles are about how they make it easier for developers? I think is telling of where tech culture is these days. IME frequent updates terrify non-technical users, any given update might change the UI, remove a feature the use or add some other complication (like simply not working) at an inopportune moment. Big fat updates give them a chance to prepare for these changes at a time of their choosing.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
That’s what I am thinking. I hate it when my browser or a phone app suddenly looks different without warning.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  Just got an Office 365 update. Suddenly all icons are different for no good reason and without warning.
  - flukus 7y ago
    Fortunately I don't do family tech support anymore, but that's exactly the sort of thing that would result in a panicked phone call and a user having to "learn it all over again". And that's for a purely cosmetic change.