Thunderbird versioning/Naming.

Patrick Cloke clokep at gmail.com
Sat Jul 6 00:59:02 UTC 2013


Personally, I have to disagree with you. I think this would further add to the version number confusion, especially for developers (who are the only ones that are supposed to care about version numbers, according to Mozilla). If there have been a lot of questions about this then I'd agree we should change it, but it doesn't sound like there has been.

This does also remind me of questions that appear on the calendar newsgroup frequently asking what version of Lightning matches what version of Firefox, why confuse it more? Let's just keep them synched.

--Patrick

-----Original Message-----
From: "Josiah Bruner" <josiah at programmer.net>
Sent: ‎7/‎4/‎2013 10:30 PM
To: "tb-planning at mozilla.org" <tb-planning at mozilla.org>
Subject: Re: Thunderbird versioning/Naming.

Well, I thought about this for a while, in fact, I even started writing several paragraphs on why we shouldn't do what you suggested. However, as I thought about it some more, I must agree with your points. The ideal solution would be to keep our version number based on Gecko, while actually releasing a new product every 6 weeks. Of course, that simply won't happen because of lack of resources and frankly, lack of product. There would be no real point.

Jumps from 17 to 24 to 31, etc, are very confusing for our users and may cause them to lose faith in its' development. Even looking at the Thunderbird page causes people to wonder. (Though the version of Thunderbird proceeding 24 should have some large changes, and I want to redo the site then, which will help). Anyway, this kind of jumping is just not beneficial in any way, so I agree that Thunderbird 20XY needs to be the future.

Thunderbird 2014 makes the product seem more developed, professional, and trust-worthy. Of course, anyone with counter points should most definitely respond in objection. I, on the other hand, second the motion for Thunderbird 2014. I assume though that people from within Mozilla will really make the final ruling on this.


Josiah Bruner,
Thunderbird Front-end,
Cocoa/Widget


On 7/4/13 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

-- 
 “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin Franklin
 

_______________________________________________
tb-planning mailing list
tb-planning at mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/tb-planning/attachments/20130705/13d722de/attachment.html>


More information about the tb-planning mailing list