Ben Bucksch wrote:
> Gervase Markham wrote:
>
>> Footprint, Performance and Stability
>> ------------------------------------
>> I want to start by making a controversial statement: we should have
>> no, or
>> very little criteria in these categories for Mozilla 1.0.
>
> I do think that a 1.0 must be, above all, stable. Stable meaning:
> - almost no crashs
> - no known security holes
> - no non-minor dataloss.
>
> "almost no crashs" I would personally define as MTBF (mean time before
> failure) of 250-500 hours.
>
>> Why? Recently, we have been going through a stable period, and people are
>> generally pleased with the levels of stability and performance Mozilla
>> has
>> reached.
>>
> Which "people"? People involved in the development of Mozilla?
>
> Consider that they are used to bad quality. They know how to work around
> and deal with crashs.
> Also, are you sure that they are pleased with the stability in an
> absolute sense of just in comparison to earlier releases? 1.0 must be
> comparable in an absolute sense.
>
> Compare Mozilla with other open-source software (!= GNOME :) ), and
> Mozilla looks quite bad. 0.9.1 today crashed 8 times within an hour for me.
>
>> Work continues, as it always does, and is an incremental process.
>>
> But 1.0 is an absolute milestone. No excuses allowed anymore.
>
>> My point is that we should be happy with current levels
>>
> I disagree.
>
>> We can't compare to
>> 4.x - because we do so much more. We can't compare to NS 6.0, because it
>> sucked, perf-wise :-) We can't compare to IE, because it doesn't run on
>> all the platforms Mozilla does.
>>
> We can, and IMO should, compare Mozilla to other applications on the
> same platform. E.g. Mozilla Navigator Windows to MSIE6 or Mozilla
> Mailnews Unix to Balsa.
>
>> Standards Support
>>
> As for Mailnews:
>
> * I think that 100% GNKSA-compliance (all MUSTs fulfilled) is what
> we should provide for 1.0.
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76449
I'm not sure we will be able to finish all those without external help.
> * I think that the output we create (format of msgs sent out) is
> sane already.
Yup.
> * I can't comment on standards-compliance of network protocols like
> POP3 and IMAP.
We're fine there, I'm pretty sure. Anyways, it's not an area to focus on
- we've got bigger problems than that.
>
>> Mozilla is an extremely large and complex application with a high barrier
>> to entry for new engineers (particularly those outside Netscape.) Having
>> each engineer spending a week doing a brain dump of stuff they know about
>> their area would go a long way towards lowering that barrier, and
>> increasing everyone's productivity.
>>
> Yes. :)
>
--
H�kan Waara
