<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/8/12 11:36 PM, Mark Banner wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5022DBEA.4030901@mozilla.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
Hi All,<br>
<br>
I just updated the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird/Proposal:_New_Release_and_Governance_Model">Change
of Release and Governance model</a> wiki page with a revised
section for Releases, this links straight to a new etherpad
containing the initial version of the proposed release plan
following the switch to the new model:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://etherpad.mozilla.org/tb-releases">https://etherpad.mozilla.org/tb-releases</a><br>
<br>
Sorry for no pretty pictures, I'll put one together after we flesh
it out a bit more.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
so<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div class="" id="magicdomid11">
<ul class="list-bullet1">
<li><span class="">All releases will be based on Gecko ESR
releases</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="" id="magicdomid12">
<ul class="list-bullet2">
<li><span class="">To provide a more stable core for releases,
so that we're not affected so much by Gecko changes</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="" id="magicdomid13">
<ul class="list-bullet1">
<li><span class="">The ESR model will remain the same,
separate from the mainstream channel</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hum why that besides the channel change they'd be identical, I don't
see the need to keep two channels with the same product. What's the
point in keeping ESR and release based on the same ESR code ?<br>
<br>
I don't see the point keeping Aurora and Beta. From the way it
currently works we don't benefit much from having Aurora and Beta -
most Major regression are found at release time not on Aurora nor
beta and if they are they are found too close to the release dates
to be actionable. Maintaining Aurora is too time consuming in terms
of QA, release management and engineering for US to keep. I do see
the l10 arguments but I think we can do it in another way (eg anyway
most of the l10n strings from gecko we'll get for free from Ff).<br>
<br>
I'de like us to consider the following :<br>
<br>
<ul>
<li>We base release on ESR</li>
<li>When we have enough "new features"+bug fixes we cut a beta</li>
<li>Beta get's tested and released over a 3/4 week period</li>
<li>Next beta comes out a few months later which gives us time to
chew on beta data (bugs, feedback etc ...)</li>
</ul>
What I'm proposing looks a lot like what happened for 3.0 or 3.1 eg
reverting back to pre rapid release. I think this works better with
how I see Thunderbird evolving and will give us more stable
releases.<br>
<br>
Ludo<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
@lhirlimann on twitter
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird:Testing">https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird:Testing</a>
my photos <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/lhirlimann/collections/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/lhirlimann/collections/</a></pre>
</body>
</html>