Thunderbird versioning/Naming.

Wayne Mery (Thunderbird QA) vseerror at Lehigh.EDU
Fri Jul 5 14:54:38 UTC 2013

On 7/4/2013 7:56 PM, Unicorn.Consulting wrote:
> If this has been discussed in the past, sorry for trying to bring it up
> again.
> With the first release of Thunderbird under it's new release model I
> think that it is important to de-emphasise the version number as the
> jump from 17 to 24 will leave many wondering what is going on.  To this
> end I suggest that the version number become an internal/troubleshooting
> item much as the geko version has done and that we release Thunderbird
> with a year appended as has become almost dejure over the last decade.
> Yes I know everyone else has started going back to numbers, but
> Thunderbird is not in the Chrome race to 1000 and we need to make it
> clear we are not.
> Years ago when products started being released as year based versions I
> thought that is was the silliest of ideas, but in this case where we
> will be having an annual release it makes sense to name the product
> intrinsically for the year of release. Given the lateness on the year I
> suggest we release Thunderbird 2014 instead of Thunderbird 24.  This
> approach sets the user expectation on release schedules correctly to an
> annual or more cycle, makes it easy for even the slowest among them to
> work out that their Thunderbird is 5 years old and in my opinion
> differentiates the versioning from Firefox so people can stop asking
> "Firefox is at Version 20 where is the Thunderbird update.
> Matt

There has been surprisingly few questions about version numbers from 
testers of early releases, as well as users who see Firefox version 
number incrementing and Thunderbird is not.  Thus, I believe the numbers 
version jump is a non-issue. I also believe that if we use some other 
scheme, expecially one that disconnects from the "mozilla standard", it 
may create more issues (and not just the one aceman points out) than it 

More information about the tb-planning mailing list