Version number changes for Thunderbird
thomas.duellmann at gmx.de
Fri Jun 10 18:34:37 UTC 2011
On 31.05.2011 00:09, Thomas Düllmann wrote:
> ...My whole-hearted agreement on Karsten's scepticism against the new
> versioning intentions. ...
> Imagine Thunderbird 10 and we may still not be able to search all of
> our address books in one go - wouldn't that be weird?
Fwiw, I was wrong. I underestimated user sensitivity to our version
numbers, which are about to become meaningless.
Bug 170270 (Cannot search multiple/all addressbooks), comment 25:
> It's incredible how this crippled functionality still persists since ever... We
> are already heading for version 5.0 and nothing.
In view of this, my above statement should probably read:
Imagine Thunderbird *5* and we may still not be able to search all of
our address books in one go - wouldn't that be weird?
For business maintenance and private support, we also make life harder
with the new version numbers:
So far, asking users for the version number would provide an easy and
immediate impression if they need to update or not: "I'm on version 2"
-> "you better update" // "I am on version 3" -> "that's quite recent".
Between version numbers of 20something+ nobody will be able to keep
track and give such advice. Of course, automatical updates should be
"on", but given the high number of arguable UI changes, not everybody
will want that...
While some people are dreaming of SwanBird (certainly nice, but not to
be expected before new version 1000...), others just want a fully
functional mail reader that let's them search all of their address
books, or that doesn't delete their mail when they press DEL on a
selected and focussed attachment, to name but a few...
+1 for the compromise suggestion of having main version numbers as we
had them (3, 4, 5) + sub-version number according to ff/gecko (5+x):
4.105 - the best of both worlds. And something more appropriate to
describe the state of the bird in terms of bugs and (missing) features.
More information about the tb-planning