mkmelin+mozilla at iki.fi
Sat Jul 6 20:12:30 UTC 2013
On 05.07.2013 17:54, Wayne Mery (Thunderbird QA) wrote:
> 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
>> 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.
> 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 solves.
More information about the tb-planning