<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 04/08/2011 17:30, Kent James wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4E3AC938.4040408@caspia.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Overall, an excellent document. My only requests are that you add
a plan for the timing of increments of the allowable Thunderbird
revisions on AMO, and that you be explicit about the allowable
timing of changes to interfaces.<br>
</blockquote>
So I think for the interfaces I've already covered them in the "What
happens where?" section. Aurora is generally stable (i.e. we may
have to change something if we need to back out). Beta is stable for
add-on compatibility.<br>
<br>
There's going to be a separate plan that I'm drawing up somewhere on
the specific timings, although once I have a bit more info on the FF
process, I'll add a note about roughly when we add n.* versions.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4E3AC938.4040408@caspia.com" type="cite">For
me, the AMO revision allowed is still an issue that is not being
done as I would wish. A binary extension such as mine should
ideally do their version updates in the aurora time scale and get
reviewed (all of which can take many weeks), so that it is ready
for use when beta comes out. (Of course this is only doable if you
are disciplined about not doing interface changes late in the
aurora timescale). So when beta releases, AMO should already be
allowing compatibility with it. But right now for example, with
aurora at 7, 7.0 is not an allowed AMO TB version. A binary
extension does not want to declare compatibility with the allowed
8.0a1. If you wait until after beta is released to update AMO,
then at the (automatic) user beta updates, your extensions are
guaranteed to be incompatible, regardless of how diligent the
extension author is.<br>
</blockquote>
I've not been able to confirm this, but my understanding was that
binary extensions would have to be recompiled against the beta
version even if they were compatible on aurora, as some of the
stabilisation of aurora may require it. I may have miss-understood
that and I've also can't find the reference :-(<br>
<br>
Generally what I expect us to be doing is to migrate a release to
aurora, and after a week or two of it being there, we'll add the
major version to AMO and do the automatic compatibility bump. This
should hopefully mean that we're confident with the interface
stability but also give time for extension authors to adapt before
we hit beta.<br>
<br>
The 7.0 and 7.* have now been added to AMO, it was a slight
oversight that this hadn't happened earlier.<br>
<br>
Mark.<br>
</body>
</html>