3 ms·

Well, this is bizarre. I was planning on upgrading my 3.6 to 4.0 shortly. I guess I won't. Better stick with 3.6 until the dust settles (?). Can anyone point m

Well, this is bizarre. I was planning on upgrading my 3.6 to 4.0 shortly. I guess I won't. Better stick with 3.6 until the dust settles (?). Can anyone point me to a concise-but-thorough explanation of just what I can expect from the new FF release plan? I take it they're moving to something like the Ubuntu normal vs. LTS normal distinction. The thing is, Ubuntu explicitly labels some releases as LTS ("10.04 LTS" vs. "10.10"). FF doesn't even put version numbers in their press releases anymore. (What's the logic behind that?)

azakai 15y ago
4 and above will work like Chrome's release process: New stable release every 6-12 weeks. Releasing version N means N-1 is EOL and gets no further updates. No version numbers in press releases (they are meaningless, except as a convenient identifier for bug reports and such). Nightly, Autora (alpha, basically) and Beta channels to test unstable versions. There is talk about having an LTS version, just like Ubuntu, yeah. I think it's a good idea. Don't know if it will happen, though, but I am guessing it or something similar to it will.
- ggchappell 15y ago
  Thanks for the info. > No version numbers in press releases (they are meaningless, except as a convenient identifier for bug reports and such). Meaningless? Maybe. That depends on how automatic updates are handled. I have 3.6. Updating to 3.6.x is done without asking me. Updating to 4.0.x asks (and so far I've always said no). There is a difference between these two: same-version updates that I get automatically, and next-version updates that ask for permission first. The difference is traditionally expressed using version numbers. If we get rid of version numbers, then it still needs to be expressed somehow. One solution is to make all updates automatic. Perhaps that is what they are doing? Is an update from 4.0 to 5.0 done without asking for permission? If so, then installing 4.0 really means installing the latest version forever. But if not, then how is the difference going to be explained to a nontechnical user? "A new Firefox is available, and has been installed for you" vs. "A new Firefox is available; do you want to install it?" does not, IMHO, explain things well enough.

azakai 15y ago

4 and above will work like Chrome's release process: New stable release every 6-12 weeks. Releasing version N means N-1 is EOL and gets no further updates. No version numbers in press releases (they are meaningless, except as a convenient identifier for bug reports and such). Nightly, Autora (alpha, basically) and Beta channels to test unstable versions. There is talk about having an LTS version, just like Ubuntu, yeah. I think it's a good idea. Don't know if it will happen, though, but I am guessing it or something similar to it will.

ggchappell 15y ago
Thanks for the info. > No version numbers in press releases (they are meaningless, except as a convenient identifier for bug reports and such). Meaningless? Maybe. That depends on how automatic updates are handled. I have 3.6. Updating to 3.6.x is done without asking me. Updating to 4.0.x asks (and so far I've always said no). There is a difference between these two: same-version updates that I get automatically, and next-version updates that ask for permission first. The difference is traditionally expressed using version numbers. If we get rid of version numbers, then it still needs to be expressed somehow. One solution is to make all updates automatic. Perhaps that is what they are doing? Is an update from 4.0 to 5.0 done without asking for permission? If so, then installing 4.0 really means installing the latest version forever. But if not, then how is the difference going to be explained to a nontechnical user? "A new Firefox is available, and has been installed for you" vs. "A new Firefox is available; do you want to install it?" does not, IMHO, explain things well enough.