Proposed Release Plan changes

Axel axel.grude at
Fri Aug 10 23:06:12 UTC 2012

> On 8/10/2012 8:57 AM, Mark Banner wrote:
>> On 09/08/2012 06:18, Ludovic Hirlimann wrote:
>>> so
>>>>   * All releases will be based on Gecko ESR releases
>>>>   * To provide a more stable core for releases, so that we're not affected so
>>>>     much by Gecko changes
>>>>   * The ESR model will remain the same, separate from the mainstream channel
>>> Hum why that besides the channel change they'd be identical, I don't see the need 
>>> to keep two channels with the same product. What's the point in keeping ESR and 
>>> release based on the same ESR code ?
>> Keeping them separate gives the opportunity for intermediate releases if we have a 
>> significant amount of features ready. If we didn't have separate channels, then we 
>> wouldn't be able to do those intermediate releases because we'd be breaking the ESR 
>> promise. As we don't yet know the amount of contributions that we'll get going 
>> forward I feel it would be better to keep the opportunity available rather than 
>> take it away. We can always review it in a year or two.
> Would it be possible to guesstimate what would happen in an "average" release cycle 
> by looking at the changes from TB 10-now?

So far this has been fairly confusing to me; for the "normal" release channel (if you 
didn't suggest scrapping it altogether) a house-number like "updates not less than 8 
weeks but never more than 4 months" would be helpful.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the tb-planning mailing list