Version number changes for Thunderbird

Mark Banner mbanner at
Tue May 31 10:06:26 UTC 2011

On 31/05/2011 10:11, Ben Bucksch wrote:
> On 26.05.2011 20:06, Mark Banner wrote:
>> We'll also be de-emphasising the version numbers in our releases, it 
>> is much more important that users keep up to date with the latest 
>> security and stability fixes, and of course latest improvements, than 
>> being concerned that a jump from one number to the next is a big jump.
> FYI, that *is* an important information, though. There are developers 
> and companies with big deployments which need to know how much work 
> they have to expect, due to API and profile file changes, UI changes 
> etc..
I think if they assess the amount of worked based on the version number 
increment, then that is going to give a very poor indication of the 
amount of work. For example, with the old system, what if we did a 
whole-number version bump, but only actually implemented one big new 
feature without changing other APIs, and without affecting their 
integration. They would assume a lot of work, when in fact it would be 
very little.

Likewise, with a minor version bump, we could have changed a lot of 
APIs, but not actually implemented many new features, and they would 
then have a lot of work to do.

Surely it is better to give the new release some assessment (e.g. a 
quick test, brief investigation into the code), rather than rely on a 
version number increment?

> Question: Will we end up with Thunderbird 15 in a year's time (and TB 
> 25 in 2 years), or what's the plan?
Yes, we'll get numbers that big.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4007 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <>

More information about the tb-planning mailing list