Version number changes for Thunderbird

Tanstaafl tanstaafl at libertytrek.org
Thu Jun 2 18:38:49 UTC 2011


On 2011-06-01 7:10 PM, Rafael Ebron wrote:
> We do need to save users from version marketing.

Please think about this for a minute. I see this as creating an entirely
new problem trying to solve a non-existent one.

My users don't want or need saving from version marketing.

I'd also point out that, in reality, it is this new hyper-versioning
scheme (for lack of a better term) that will most likely be considered
'version marketing', at least by the tabloids. I really don't relish the
idea of Mozilla becoming a side joke like Chrome is now with their
version creep, but that is what will happen... "Look, thunderbird just
released version 25 <yawn>."

What me and my users do need are things like better IMAP support (the
bug about re-downloading the same attachment over and over again for
folders marked for offline use for example is still not fixed and is
extremely annoying at work where I connect to my IMAP server on a Gb
LAN, and extremely frustrating when connecting at home over the
internet), better Address Book support (can't search across multiple
ABs, extremely limited Printing capabilities, etc), Group Policy
support, and many others...

You are right - I don't care much about version numbers, but I mean this
in the exact opposite way you do - I don't view the current version
numbering scheme as broken, so it doesn't, in my opinion, need fixing,
while many other very real problems (see above) do.

I believe that Chrome was what started this new hyper-versioning scheme.
Opera kindof started following their lead, and now it appears that the
Firefox team is simply emulating them, and now Thunderbird is emulating
Firefox, 'just because'. The fact is, no other open source software
ratchets their version numbers up like this - quite the opposite in fact.

The Linux kernel has existed for - what, almost 30 years now? And Linus
just announced version 3.0... if they were following such a numbering
scheme, they would be at version - what, 5,327?

And no, I'm not complaining, just responding to what I see as comments
in defense of a decision that appears to have no good defense save one -
it is being done to keep up with Firefox.

Well, the best answer, in my opinion, has already been suggested... use
the MINOR version number for that, and only bump the major number for
the same reasons as always - MAJOR new features/backend changes, etc.

Ok, that's just the thoughts of one lone irrelevant sys-admin in charge
of a 60+ user base.



More information about the tb-planning mailing list