> * Lack of SSE2, though not an XP problem per se, coincides with XP, so we could just require SSE2 if we didn't support XP.
We have data about this. Unfortunately we'd also have to kick out some Windows 7 users. For every ten WinXP Firefox users without SSE2 we have a Win7 Firefox user without SSE2. In "real numbers" we're looking at fractions of a million users, say somewhere on the order of 100k Firefox users on Windows 7 have no SSE2. (there may also be some tens or hundreds of Linux users, but with sizes so small I don't have confidence in the numbers produced). :chutten On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Ben Hearsum <bhear...@mozilla.com> wrote: > This would require a new update channel to support, because it would be a > unique line of code that isn't "release" or "esr". > > It couldn't be implemented as a relbranch either, because we'd need CI for > it. You're basically proposing a long lived esr-like branch that we only > ship to XP users. > > I suspect that backporting to this would get very difficult very quickly. > We'd be better off moving XP to ESR IMO. > > On 2016-04-20 02:53 PM, Armen Zambrano G. wrote: > >> Would it make more sense to have a relbranch instead of using ESR? >> IIRC ESRs are stable for a period but when we uplift we uplift >> everything new. >> For this XP relbranch we would only take security patches. >> >> It would serve the purpose of keeping our users secure where they're but >> saving some energy in making new features also XP compatible. >> >> Setting an N months EOL expectation (plus another criteria[s]) might be >> wise rather than leaving it open ended. >> >> regards, >> Armen >> >> On 16-04-20 11:46 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Thomas Zimmermann >>> <tzimmerm...@mozilla.com> wrote: >>> >>>> And XP still runs on ~10% of all desktops. That's an opportunity to >>>> convert some of the users to Firefox. >>>> >>> >>> This assumes that >>> >>> 1) users who are still on XP still make active browser choices >>> 2) ESR wouldn't be good enough to for these users >>> 3) XP will still run ~10% of desktops in 11 months. >>> >>> (FWIW, StatCounter puts XP's Web usage share of desktop closer to 7% >>> than 10%.) >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Milan Sreckovic >>> <msrecko...@mozilla.com> wrote: >>> >>>> What’s the “XP tax”? >>>> >>> >>> It's our attention being diverted to being backward-looking instead of >>> forward-looking by a thousand cuts. Here are some examples off the top >>> of my head: >>> >>> * We don't have EME-style DRM on XP, but if we hadn't even tried to >>> accommodate XP, we could have avoided some grief. (For obvious >>> reasons, I'm not going to elaborate on this on this list.) >>> >>> * The Rust team has had to do extra work to support XP, since XP is a >>> Firefox product requirement. >>> >>> * Lack of SSE2, though not an XP problem per se, coincides with XP, >>> so we could just require SSE2 if we didn't support XP. >>> >>> * XP failing to preserve register state on newer CPUs caused an >>> investigation like >>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1263495#c13 >>> >>> Obviously, none of the above alone seems decisive, but those are just >>> a few recent things that I can think of without searching. I'm sure >>> there are a lots and lots of things, each smallish taken alone, but >>> they add up and take our collective attention away from making our >>> product better on current systems. Moving XP to ESR would liberate us >>> from thinking of some of them, but, granted, we might feel compelled >>> to figure out stuff like the AVX thing even on ESR. Also, some of the >>> above are sunk cost now, but my point is that as long as XP is treated >>> as supported, it can inflict new analogous costs on us. >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:24 PM, Kyle Huey <m...@kylehuey.com> wrote: >>> >>>> We jump through some hoops to support things like Linux and Mac too, and >>>> those platforms combined have far fewer users than XP. >>>> >>> >>> Linux and Mac will still be as relevant in 11 months. XP's relevance >>> is declining. If our estimate was that XP won't be worthwhile in 11 >>> months, putting it on ESR now would make sense compared to expending >>> the effort of full support over the next 11 months. >>> >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
