Proposed Release Plan changes

Mark Banner mbanner at
Thu Aug 9 12:52:18 UTC 2012

On 09/08/2012 11:43, Ben Bucksch wrote:
> On 09.08.2012 08:25, Magnus Melin wrote:
>> If we absolutely can't do full rapid releases, I'd still propose we 
>> have those releases as some kind of blessed builds (hey, even 
>> nightlies auto-update!), but make more noise about the ESR-based 
>> releases. From a community engagement perspective it's indeed very 
>> bad if the time until your contribution is live grows further. 
The problem with "blessed builds" is that you basically need to call 
them betas, which is roughly what you get in the proposed plan anyway.

> I think most users what ESR - in fact they want it even slower than 
> current ESR.
> Some other geek users want the latest and greatest. They currently get 
> that with the rapid releases, so they use the releases - which is why 
> we don't find regressions until we have released, as Ludo said. 
> Essentially, our releases are the betas, which isn't good. So, if we 
> switch to ESR-based releases as Mark proposed, then make "betas" based 
> on the rapid releases, and have the nightlies based on m-c for 
> developers and the really brave users/testers, then we should cover 
> most bases and get good testing coverage. (This is assuming that 
> making a beta release isn't much work, because there's very little QA 
> involved.)
Betas aren't too much work, we'd probably do one a cycle for most cycles 
(assuming no significant issues found for the beta users), except during 
the cycles leading up to release when we'd ramp it up again. The only 
time we'd do something different would be for intermediate releases, 
which would have to have betas based on the Gecko 17 route, but would 
include a lot of the fixes from the trunk.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4123 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <>

More information about the tb-planning mailing list