Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 13:55:19 -0700 From: Joe Kelsey <joek@mail.flyingcroc.net> To: Jeremy Lea <reg@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Joe Kelsey <joek@mail.flyingcroc.net>, freebsd-gnome <freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Mozilla 1.1 is stable *not* devel. Message-ID: <3D767337.2090403@flyingcroc.net> References: <3D762C1D.4090609@flyingcroc.net> <20020904203332.GA20743@shale.csir.co.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jeremy Lea wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 08:51:57AM -0700, Joe Kelsey wrote: > >>If you actually *read* the roadmap, it clearly shows a twin-track >>approach to mozilla development, *both* tracks being *stable* releases. > > > I don't know which roadmap you're reading, but you obviously don't follow or > understand Mozilla development. 1.1 is an unstable development release. > There will be no more releases on the 1.1 branch. 1.0 was their first API > freeze, and consumers of the mozilla.org code have been encouraged to follow > that branch. I cannot see this view in *any* of the roadmap wording. They clearly intend that the 1.0.x releases will be done to support Netscape. There is absolutely *no* wording anywhere about whether or not they will ever release the 1.0.1 formally, other than to support Netscape 7. In fact, the release notes for 1.1 state clearly as the first two bullet points: o Imporved application and layout performance o Imporved stability By this and any other measure you choose (release size (smaller), code size (smaller), code speed (faster), ...) mozilla 1.1 is the *stable* branch, whereas mozilla 1.0.x is the vendor-support branch. > As such I think that the chosen port names are ideal. Names like mozilla10, > etc. just lead to repo bloat, because they eventually have to be copied or > moved. > > Remember, mozilla.org does not release browsers for public consumption. That is why we have a port. > They are for testing purposes only. Because we happen to have no better > browser is our problem... Stability for mozilla.org is defined in terms of > the API, not the MTBF. Indeed, mozilla1.0 crashes *constantly* with almost *any* plugin. mozilla1.1 *rarely* dies due to plugin issues. That means that mozilla1.1 is more stable. There is no information available anywhere as to whether or not they will ever actually release 1.0.1 to anyone other than Netscape and also no information about what is different between the hypothetical 1.0.1 and 1.1. The entire roadmap page says that the ABI is frozen for all of mozilla 1.x. That means 1.1, 1.2, etc. I think that now that the 1.0 release is out, the 1.0 rationale needs to be revisited, and I have sent a note to this effect to suggestions@mozilla.org. /Joe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-gnome" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D767337.2090403>