<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 31/05/2011 03:40, Unicorn.Consulting wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4DE45515.5010201@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<link href="chrome://translator/skin/floatingPanel.css"
type="text/css" rel="stylesheet">
This issue with sky rocketing version numbers will significantly
increase the 'another new version and this bug is not fixed' level
of dissatisfaction. Users expect change with a new version, even
security and bug fix releases. They might not be all that
switched on to exactly which version they have, but they do notice
when they get one and expectations are high that their personal
problem will have been addressed.<br>
</blockquote>
I can understand what you're saying, but isn't that really an issue
with the rapid release process and not with whatever version number
format we go with? I think the fact that new users already get
security & bug fix releases and they know when they do, will
mean they are already used to another new version turning up.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4DE45515.5010201@gmail.com" type="cite"> The
one thing about this that I have not seen discussed anywhere is
what it will do to addon comparability checking. <br>
Will add on developers also need to release a new version every 6
weeks?<br>
Will they simply start placing compatibility entries showing 3 to
99?<br>
Will add on developers even bother?<br>
</blockquote>
I haven't covered this yet for Thunderbird, but the plan is to
follow what Firefox do - they have already have a process in place
where they look at add-ons for interface uses that have changed, and
bump the add-on compatibility version if none are detected. I
believe they will be looking at incorporating user feedback as well
(I think I saw some references to the add-on compatibility reporter
being used to aid this).<br>
<br>
On the whole, I don't think we'd be breaking every extension every
six weeks, so it is a lot less work for add on developers to do than
first impressions might give. So far I believe the add-on coverage
for FF 5 from the automated bump is somewhere around the 75% to 80%
mark, which IMO is a pretty good start.<br>
<br>
Mark.<br>
</body>
</html>