<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 20/07/2013 06:34, Anton Kovalyov
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:231AE971-EB5D-4451-9D7C-42CD790A44E8@mozilla.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
But people who want stable Firefox and latest tools will be able
to download Developer build and run in alongside their main
Firefox (stable or beta) with no additional work required.<br>
</blockquote>
I think this is totally wrong. People who want stable Firefox should
stay far away from Nightly, Aurora is for them. Unless by stable you
mean that they don't have to update it every day.<br>
Otherwise, what would make Developer Build stable? just merging
central once a week won't make it more stable than Nightly, you may
well hit a bad regression in your merge and have a totally unstable
build. Are you going to test each changeset to get the more stable
one in the week?<br>
<br>
Regarding latest technology, I'm not sure why 6 weeks makes so much
of a difference, was not a point of rapid release process to give
new technology faster in Web developers hands? Why is Aurora so bad?<br>
<br>
-m<br>
</body>
</html>