Firefox 3.1 becoming Firefox 3.5
mozilla.extensions.dev at gmail.com
Sun Mar 8 13:34:30 GMT 2009
On 03/07/2009 10:01 AM, Mike Shaver wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:20 AM, John Vivirito
> <mozilla.extensions.dev at gmail.com> wrote:
>> As for the changes in versions, does this affect release times or is 3.5
>> still set to be released before 3.2?
> No change in release times due to the numbering change.
>> If not maybe bumping 3.2 to 3.6 or something like that this way it all
>> stays inline. releasing 3.5 than releasing 3.2 might (most likely will)
>> confuse end users.
> Yes, that would be confusing indeed! From my original post in this thread:
> Beta 3 will be the last milestone release with the 3.1 version number, and
> Firefox 3.5b4 will be the following one. mozilla-central's Minefield
> version will be changed to 3.6pre as a placeholder. For an abundance of
> clarity: this does not indicate that the next version will be called
> "Firefox 3.6" when it's shipped.
> The Firefox after 3.5 might be 3.6 or 4 or Pro Extreme or Mauve, but
> it won't be a number that sorts lower than 3.5, I assure you. :)
Thank your for clairfing
> On Mar 7, 9:20 am, John Vivirito <mozilla.extensions.... at gmail.com>
>> > That would also caaause an issue with extensions devs i think. if they
>> > bump max version to 3.5 but the code changes in 3.2 might conflict with
>> > code in extensions.
> This is absolutely a huge concern. The only solution to avoiding a
> conflict with an extension or theme developed for 3.1 is not to merely
> bump the maxVersion to 3.5.* for compatibility with Shiretoko 3.5, but
> to also bump the minVersion to 3.5b4pre or whatever number precisely
> identifies the first 3.5 build so that installation is not possible on
> anything identified as 3.2.*, and of course 3.6.*.
By bumping the minversion will cause incompatibility for <3.5.*
Does this mean that extensions for 3.0.X will be provided separate from
> On Mar 7, 10:46 pm, Samuel Sidler <s... at mozilla.com> wrote:
>> > On Mar 7, 2009, at 7:34 PM, Gordon P. Hemsley wrote:
>>> > > And I would see Gecko and Firefox versions finally synching as a good
>>> > > thing. I have expressed from the beginning my support for the fact
>>> > > that [Gecko 1.9].x == [Firefox 3].x. Why would effort be made to
>>> > > specifically go back away from that?
>> > Gecko numbers have never really been "in sync" with major Firefox
>> > versions (maintenance releases are clearly different here). We have
>> > major Gecko versions and major Firefox versions.
>> > e.g.:
>> > * Firefox 1 == Gecko 1.7
>> > * Firefox 1.5 == Gecko 1.8.0
>> > * Firefox 2 == Gecko 1.8.1
>> > * Firefox 3 == Gecko 1.9.0
>> > * Firefox 3.5 == Gecko 1.9.1
>> > There's nothing wrong or inconsistent about this. Gecko version
>> > numbers aren't really "user-facing" either, so they don't really need
>> > to be in sync with Firefox version numbers.
>> > Regardless, Gecko releases are not the same as Firefox releases. Let's
>> > not confuse the two in this discussion.
>> > -Sam
> I'm aware that they haven't been in sync before. But I would think
> it'd be beneficial for them to finally be, wouldn't it? Perhaps not to
> the end user, but for developers (of various kinds)?
> Is Gecko actually released independently of Firefox, or does it just
> sit in the repository with tags? And how much of Firefox is Gecko, and
> how much isn't? Particularly, with regard to the new features in
> Shiretoko? I don't think the distinction should be noted until those
> details are specified.
I can understand the concern that gecko versions are not the same as
Firefox, however gecko is NOT just used for Firefox but also for
Seamonkey and others. So syncing gecko with Firefox versions, I dont see
> I don't think this is a major concern since trunk will be bumped to
> 3.6a1pre at the same time the branch is changed to 3.5b4pre. Certainly
> it is possible that people using older versions of trunk might end up
> installing a 3.5 compatible add-on, but really most people there will
> be auto-updating to new nightlies all the time. Anyone staying fixed
> on older versions have their own problems to content with anyway.
In the case of Ubuntu we don't auto-update and I'm sure is same for most
Linux User# 414246
"How can i get lost, if i have no where to go"
-- Metallica from Unforgiven III
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-mozillateam/attachments/20090308/ab2a853d/attachment.pgp
More information about the Ubuntu-mozillateam