[Mageia-dev] FireFox ESR <= we should totally go for this wrt stable releases

[Claire Robinson]

On 13/01/12 11:37, Michael Scherer wrote:
> 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 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.
>>>
>>
>> With 12 months support more often than not it would need updating in the
>> lifespan of the Mageia 9 month release anyway.
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>> 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.

My meaning was that it isn't just general software. As I said, it is one 
of those packages that reviewers quote version numbers and users expect 
to be updated.

IMO we should be on the latest version but I really do understand the 
arguments against it so I understand why you disagree :)