Re: Removing Firefox Version Number

Tyler Downer <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.mozilla.ui
Organization http://groups.google.com
Message-ID <4e8efa6f-cb59-43a3-83e8-f5ba107edd30@q12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 16, 10:45 am, Asa Dotzler <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tyler Downer wrote:
> > On Aug 16, 9:51 am, Robert Kaiser<[email protected]>  wrote:
> >> Tyler Downer schrieb:
>
> >>> Example of how Firefox's updating is broken.
> >>> This morning, I open Firefox 5.0.1, I open the About window, Firefox
> >>> begins to download Firefox 6.
> >> Good.
>
> >>> After the update, the Addon Compatibility checker opens up,
> >>> runs, and informs me that the Java Console isn't compatible with
> >>> Firefox 6. I can either check for updates for it, or skip. I skip.
> >> A patch just landed on Nightly to make this better in the future (this
> >> code should get to release in 12 weeks unless something bad is
> >> discovered in it). I sincerely hope that 99.9% of the users will never
> >> enable Java Console again and this won't be a problem any more in the
> >> future.
>
> > And I was more just meaning the Java console as the first example that
> > comes to mind. But have the compatibility checker show up at all is a
> > bad idea. There was one idea I heard tossed around a while back about
> > having Firefox update on shutdown, instead of startup, which would
> > make more sense.
>
> This is in the plans. It can't complete the update on shutdown, but it
> can do a lot of it before shutdown so that on start-up the work left to
> do is so tiny we don't need a separate update dialog. Basically once
> every 6 weeks, Firefox will open a tiny fraction slower.
>
> Your instincts/idea on this were spot on. We're doing it.
>
> - A

Well then, let's do it this way. Prove that you can update 95% of All
Firefox users (I'd be happy with 90% even) within a reasonable time
frame, make the update as seamless as possible, and without
significant backlash from users and the community. Figure out a LTS
plan for Enterprise (may I suggest picking one release a year to be
LTS, and providing security and stability updates for it). THEN we can
talk about removing the version number from About (even though I think
it is a bad idea still) and moving away from "versions" as you like to
say. Right now, you are putting the cart before the hose, when you
don't even have a cart.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.