Michael Scherer a écrit :
Le vendredi 13 janvier 2012 à 11:21 +0000, Claire Robinson a écrit :
On 13/01/12 09:36, nicolas vigier wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012, Sander Lepik wrote:
13.01.2012 03:20, Maarten Vanraes kirjutas:
see https://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2012/01/10/delivering-a-mozilla-firefox-
extended-support-release/
see https://wiki.mozilla.org/images/9/9d/Esr-release-overview.png
ESR is a 1y extended supported release...
looking at the image we'd be having supported versions for our 9month release
schedule every time... we should totally use this release and not go towards
FF11 for our release.
We've been complaining about the too quick release schedule... this is our
chance!
( i think if the FF maintainer wishes, he could also do backports of the
regular releases... )
i'm hoping everyone agrees? including FF maintainer?
I'd say let's go for the long-term release, and let those wanting the
latest and greatest use the upstream version.
1) Upstream will release probably at least a week before we could
release it as an update. With a 6-week release cycle, we will always be
lagging.
2) Mozilla (Firefox/Seamonkey/Thunderbird) is very conservative in their
requires, and their rpm for mdv (and thus mga) menus are well done, so
newer upstream versions are highly unlikely to have any problems on install.
(Note that upstream Mozilla required libstdc++5 long after mdv had
migrated to libstdc++6 and had later dropped libstdc++5.)
I don't agree. But i'm not the maintainer.
Why not?
* Since fx10 all non-binary extensions are compatible by default (so our
main problem goes away).
* fx10 in 6 months is dead old for users POV. Many unhappy users. Lower
popularity for Mageia. (Ubuntu AFAIK is going with fast schedule).
* We will miss too many new and cool features.
* When we release
We could say the same about any other software. Firefox was an exception
on updates policy because there was no other choice. But there's no
reason to keep it as an exception when they provide a supported version.
Exactly. The fewer such exceptions the better, where alternatives exist.
With 12 months support more often than not it would need updating in the
lifespan of the Mageia 9 month release anyway.
Sure, but not every 6 weeks whether there is a bug fix or not.
On the average in the last few years, significant bug fixes in
Firefox/Seamonkey have been more like every 2 or 3 months.
Firefox is one of those programs that people like to be bang up to date
with.
All softwares are one of those programs. The only one that some non
technical users do not want to be updated are those that they do not
know, like glibc, python, perl. But still, there is people that want it
up to date, so firefox is nothing special.
It is 'bragging rights' to ship with the latest and something
reviewers always give version numbers of along with libreoffice, kde, gnome.
We will always be at least a week behind Firefox's latest release.
So where do you think those really wanting the "latest and greatest"
will go ?
Sure, and we neither update libreoffice, kde, gnome or the linux kernel.
Some people do ( kde is upated by Fedora, as well as the linux kernel ).
So that's a consistency issue, about what we promise to users.
Stability is just that, stuff that do not have interface changes every 6
weeks, stuff that do not have slight mistranslation everytime string
change, stuff that do not risk breaking software after every updates.
+1
I understand the arguments to go with the 12 months support but I think
for the reasons above we should stick with the normal release cycle or
maybe even offer both?
Offering both would mean to double our workload of supporting firefox,
and have no advantages by using the long supported release.
And that's rather useless from my point of view, if the goal is to
reduce the workload. There is already enough work to support the
distribution.
--
André
