Re: Removing Firefox Version Number

Tyler Downer wrote:
> 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.

We are already at 90% upgrades from 4 to 5. We will be even higher 
between 5 and 6 because add-on compatibility is already higher. We don't 
even know if we're going to do an LTS release (it's my hope that we 
don't) so waiting on that is not reasonable.

The updates are getting more seamless, but that hasn't stopped us from 
getting to your "happy with 90%". They will get more seamless in 7 and 8 
and 9 for sure.

The cart isn't before the horse at all. If when Firefox 9 ships (the 
first version where the version number could be removed) we've seen that 
upgrades from 5 to 6 and 6 to 7 and 7 to 8 were not improving on our 
already 90% rate per release (highly unlikly) then maybe we reconsider. 
But we're already on track for your (happy with 90%) rate and should be 
much much better in a few releases. I'd wager we'll be at 95% with 5 to 
6 in the 6 cycle and there's no reason we can't be even better in 6 to 7 
and 7 to 8.

- A