Interviewed by CNN on 08/10/2011 15:38, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)
told the world:
> Well, let's explore your metaphor further -- let's say you were used
First of all, that's not *my* metaphor. That's a *different* metaphor
superficially similar because both use trains. But that's all right.
> Now wouldn't you, Mr Bastos, think twice before willingly agree
> to catch a different train every six weeks, and wouldn't you
> perhaps prefer to catch a slightly slower train in the the sure
> and certain knowledge that it would be /reliable/, would manifest
> no unexpected behaviour, and even if it wasn't 100% bullet-proof
> against the latest weapons of micro-destruction ("WMD"s, as they
> are called in the trade, or "Viruses" and "Trojan Horses", as it
> is rumoured they were once known), there was still a 99.999%
> probability that you would arrive safely, particularly because
> you long ago invested in some good, modern, anti-WMD protection
> that made sure that your train would almost never encounter those
> WMDs in the first place ?
I might... *if* I had found problems. I don't know what you have been
doing, but I have been using the new versions as soon as they are
released and I had no weird problems. I did have a few problems with the
migration process in 2.1, but they were easily solved.
Anyway, as I explained, the 6-month release cycle is not realistic,
because the Seamonkey team would not be able to *support* SM during
those 6 months. Any issue discovered that related to Gecko would *not*
be fixed for up to 6 months. It wouldn't help much development-wise
either (unless you were willing to sacrifice even more of the
already-small Gecko support window), because the period of code
stabilization couldn't begin until Firefox began theirs. But *all* the
features developed during those 6 months would be crammed into the
*same* debugging period. Meaning, more to do during the same time window
-- easier to let a real Seamonkey bug (not a Gecko bug) slip by.
Now, you as an user is perfectly free to stay with any older version.
There was a guy here another day who's still using the old Mozilla
Application Suite. It's your right to prefer an old, no longer supported
version.
But what your proposal would amount to, in the end, is forcing all other
users to use unsupported versions too. I see no benefit to it -- losing
Gecko support, more rushed debugging phase since there would be more to
do, and -- human nature being what it is -- features being rushed into
release because the author doesn't want to wait six more months for the
following release.
Well, I see *one* benefit. People who don't want to upgrade would not
feel left behind.
And finally, even in a longer release cycle there would be always a
percentage of users who had problems with the latest changes. The
difference being that, in the rapid-release cycle, the time this user
will have to wait to see if the following version address his problem is
six weeks. In the longer cycle, he will have to wait six months.
--
MCBastos
This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized
use will be prosecuted under the DMCA.
-=-=-
... Sent from my Sirius Cybernetics Corporation Onboard Computer with
Genuine People Personalities(tm).
*Added by TagZilla 0.066.2 running on Seamonkey 2.4 *
Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
