4 ms·

Dear Mozilla. Why do you keep doing all these full version releases? Seriously it's just annoying. Just because IE is on version 10. Doesn't mean you have to be

by hozzer 15y ago

Dear Mozilla. Why do you keep doing all these full version releases? Seriously it's just annoying. Just because IE is on version 10. Doesn't mean you have to be. Why are you doing this.... You've gone from 3-8 in a year. That's not right.

sp332 15y ago
"Full" version releases? There will be a new release every six weeks. Whatever features are ready to be shipped at that time will be released. There was a discussion about removing the version number from the "About" box but it was left in for debugging purposes. That's all the version number is for now. Since there are no "long-term support" versions, just make sure you're up-to-date and don't give the version number any mind.
- technomancy 15y ago
  > There will be a new release every six weeks. The corrollary to this being that releases are no longer news.
  - sp332 15y ago
    Right. New features might be news, but new versions shouldn't be.
    - FantasyIslander 15y ago
      Exactly. For business who have legal or medical requirements to keep track of Browser Capabilities, Firefox is already known to be a rogue browser. Browser capabilities are very important, and how it behaves must be expected for legal and medical requirements. Please join us in the real world, and leave your fantasy behind. The plane boss! The plane!
- hozzer 15y ago
  The point about "There was a discussion about removing the version number" is about the only appropriate response I got that somebody actually got my rant. However you are Assuming "The latest is the Greatest". There was one of the versions 5 or 6, I forget. I didn't want it. But when it came time to reformat my computer I didn't have a choice and had to get an older version from a friend. It was buggy and slow. Crashed with Flash all the time. You could blame Adobe, but I want to wait till it gets worked out to upload. I'm just wandering why not 4.1 - 4.2 with an automatic update especially if it's a security issue. People are much more likely to download an update then a full version upgrade. You can't tell me you don't automatically click "Update" when it pops up vs load new version where you think twice. I can tell you my friends have a variety versions of firefox 3-7 (Not all of them are tech savvy). But I guarantee they all have they most up to date sub version of what ever they are on. Also as a rule with version releases I usually wait a month or 2 to let other people "beta" test it to make sure their are no major bugs. It's something I have applied in my career and has protected me from various software issues that come with new version. XP -> Vista -> 7 is an example for why I never used Vista but now happily run 7. I'm sorry but Mozilla is not using versions right. I'm just shocked people don't get this and my comment was taken with such backlash. And don't get me wrong, I love mozilla and what they've done. I love firefox.
skl_ 15y ago
Although I've not looked into exactly why Mozilla have adopted the rapid-release cycle, I'd imagine it may be something to do with the ability to quickly drop backwards-compatibility and support. That way the code base can mature faster and less time is spent on redunant versions.
- DEinspanjer 15y ago
  The most important reason for it was to keep new features from being stuck in limbo just because they happened to be part of the same branch as a feature that was taking a long time to be production ready. This is what killed us with 4.0. There were big and nice features in 4 that were actually ready more than 6 months prior to release, but they couldn't go because they were "full release" features and they were waiting for other features that were considered to be "must have" for 4.0. With the rapid release cycle, when features start development, they have the ability to be easily configured out of the release product if they aren't ready for a particular version. We have a reliable release schedule that we expect to hit every 6 weeks. Obviously, we do our best to have as many new features as are ready be part of each release, but we don't leave people wondering when it will finally happen because we keep to the schedule and release the features that are ready. Some of the biggest parts of this release were actually groundwork improvements to make the add-ons ecosphere more comfortable in the context of rapid release.
eCa 15y ago
I sort of understand their reasoning. It's easier to get people interested in a "full" release, than some 3.0.21 version every three mongths. It also was more wrong to stay on 3.6.* for over two years. A middle road might be to start a year with a full release and then do point-releases doing that year, so in 2013 we would have, for instance: 13, 13.0.1, 13.1, 13.2, 13.2.1, 13.3.
- Karunamon 15y ago
  This is a valid, on topic, cogent post. Why is it getting downvoted?
  - richbradshaw 15y ago
    Because version numbers are irrelevant, what's important is keeping people on the newest version. "Solving" the problem of large version numbers is like solving the problem 1/0.
    - eCa 15y ago
      At work we have a web application purchased about 18 months ago that officially don't support Firefox above 3.6. There were rendering differences between 3.6 and 4 that were serious enough to enforce that restriction for certain users. Apparently, it has begun working as expected again in FF7 (might have worked in FF6, not sure). The application also uses jQuery 1.2.6 (released May '08) - I guess I'll be the one to QA the migration to the present day. Hence I am not yet a believer in "latest version is the greatest version", in all cases. In principle, yes, but there are exceptions that makes version numbers necessary.
      - Skalman 15y ago
        I'm not entirely sure, but I think Mozilla will continue to support Fx 3.6 until they have a better solution for large companies. I'm not sure what that better solution would be, but I believe they're trying to solve the problem.
      - 15y ago
azakai 15y ago
Firefox and Chrome both have the same update cycle - a new major version every 6 weeks. I believe the main reason for both projects doing it are allowing them to get improvements and new features to users faster. One or two releases a year means a very long time before improvements get to users, and it holds everything back. 6-week releases means you get improvements to users in just a few months. Of course there are downsides to 6-week releases. If you prefer a slower-updating browser, there are other good options, such as Opera. And if you want even more stability, there are Safari and IE, which these days are quite good as well.

by hozzer 15y ago

sp332 15y ago

"Full" version releases? There will be a new release every six weeks. Whatever features are ready to be shipped at that time will be released. There was a discussion about removing the version number from the "About" box but it was left in for debugging purposes. That's all the version number is for now. Since there are no "long-term support" versions, just make sure you're up-to-date and don't give the version number any mind.

technomancy 15y ago
> There will be a new release every six weeks. The corrollary to this being that releases are no longer news.
- sp332 15y ago
  Right. New features might be news, but new versions shouldn't be.
  - FantasyIslander 15y ago
    Exactly. For business who have legal or medical requirements to keep track of Browser Capabilities, Firefox is already known to be a rogue browser. Browser capabilities are very important, and how it behaves must be expected for legal and medical requirements. Please join us in the real world, and leave your fantasy behind. The plane boss! The plane!
hozzer 15y ago
The point about "There was a discussion about removing the version number" is about the only appropriate response I got that somebody actually got my rant. However you are Assuming "The latest is the Greatest". There was one of the versions 5 or 6, I forget. I didn't want it. But when it came time to reformat my computer I didn't have a choice and had to get an older version from a friend. It was buggy and slow. Crashed with Flash all the time. You could blame Adobe, but I want to wait till it gets worked out to upload. I'm just wandering why not 4.1 - 4.2 with an automatic update especially if it's a security issue. People are much more likely to download an update then a full version upgrade. You can't tell me you don't automatically click "Update" when it pops up vs load new version where you think twice. I can tell you my friends have a variety versions of firefox 3-7 (Not all of them are tech savvy). But I guarantee they all have they most up to date sub version of what ever they are on. Also as a rule with version releases I usually wait a month or 2 to let other people "beta" test it to make sure their are no major bugs. It's something I have applied in my career and has protected me from various software issues that come with new version. XP -> Vista -> 7 is an example for why I never used Vista but now happily run 7. I'm sorry but Mozilla is not using versions right. I'm just shocked people don't get this and my comment was taken with such backlash. And don't get me wrong, I love mozilla and what they've done. I love firefox.

skl_ 15y ago

Although I've not looked into exactly why Mozilla have adopted the rapid-release cycle, I'd imagine it may be something to do with the ability to quickly drop backwards-compatibility and support. That way the code base can mature faster and less time is spent on redunant versions.

DEinspanjer 15y ago
The most important reason for it was to keep new features from being stuck in limbo just because they happened to be part of the same branch as a feature that was taking a long time to be production ready. This is what killed us with 4.0. There were big and nice features in 4 that were actually ready more than 6 months prior to release, but they couldn't go because they were "full release" features and they were waiting for other features that were considered to be "must have" for 4.0. With the rapid release cycle, when features start development, they have the ability to be easily configured out of the release product if they aren't ready for a particular version. We have a reliable release schedule that we expect to hit every 6 weeks. Obviously, we do our best to have as many new features as are ready be part of each release, but we don't leave people wondering when it will finally happen because we keep to the schedule and release the features that are ready. Some of the biggest parts of this release were actually groundwork improvements to make the add-ons ecosphere more comfortable in the context of rapid release.

eCa 15y ago

I sort of understand their reasoning. It's easier to get people interested in a "full" release, than some 3.0.21 version every three mongths. It also was more wrong to stay on 3.6.* for over two years. A middle road might be to start a year with a full release and then do point-releases doing that year, so in 2013 we would have, for instance: 13, 13.0.1, 13.1, 13.2, 13.2.1, 13.3.

Karunamon 15y ago
This is a valid, on topic, cogent post. Why is it getting downvoted?
- richbradshaw 15y ago
  Because version numbers are irrelevant, what's important is keeping people on the newest version. "Solving" the problem of large version numbers is like solving the problem 1/0.
  - eCa 15y ago
    At work we have a web application purchased about 18 months ago that officially don't support Firefox above 3.6. There were rendering differences between 3.6 and 4 that were serious enough to enforce that restriction for certain users. Apparently, it has begun working as expected again in FF7 (might have worked in FF6, not sure). The application also uses jQuery 1.2.6 (released May '08) - I guess I'll be the one to QA the migration to the present day. Hence I am not yet a believer in "latest version is the greatest version", in all cases. In principle, yes, but there are exceptions that makes version numbers necessary.
    - Skalman 15y ago
      I'm not entirely sure, but I think Mozilla will continue to support Fx 3.6 until they have a better solution for large companies. I'm not sure what that better solution would be, but I believe they're trying to solve the problem.
    - 15y ago

azakai 15y ago

Firefox and Chrome both have the same update cycle - a new major version every 6 weeks. I believe the main reason for both projects doing it are allowing them to get improvements and new features to users faster. One or two releases a year means a very long time before improvements get to users, and it holds everything back. 6-week releases means you get improvements to users in just a few months. Of course there are downsides to 6-week releases. If you prefer a slower-updating browser, there are other good options, such as Opera. And if you want even more stability, there are Safari and IE, which these days are quite good as well.