On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:58:51 -0700, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> The goals of our performance criteria are for a user who switches from :> the at-that-point current version of IE to the Mozilla 1.0 build to :> not experience a regression in performance that is greater than a :> factor of two. (Ideally, of course, there would be no regression at :> all. This is simply a goal for a 1.0 release.) :Because we have decided to have a stable branch in Q1 next year, and :call it Mozilla 1.0, things have become unavoidably more date-driven :than they used to be (that's not to say we won't slip if we're not :happy.) The Performance team, and anyone who wants to help them, will be :fixing dependencies of the performance tracking 1.0 metabug as fast as :they can up to the wire. That's all we can ask. Fair enough :-) :> 1. All bugs marked with the following markers in the status whiteboard :> should be fixed: [Hixie-P1] [Hixie-P2] [Hixie-P3] [Hixie-P4] :See above. But we are not going to get anywhere near the level of :compliance outlined by this document by Q1 next year. As Brendan said in :his manifesto, this will take years at the current fix rate. If you want :the fix rate to pick up, you have to pitch in :-) I'll have you know I'm setting up Activestate Perl and Cygwin on this toy JUST TO RUN PATCHMAKER. Let's see how susceptible to XUL tweaking full GNKSA compliance is! -- http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ http://www.rocknerd.org/ "One of my remaining ambitions is to receive a blowjob while remotely configuring someone's router." (Lionel Lauer)
