<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<blockquote class=" cite" id="mid_50251735_7000803_gmail_com"
cite="mid:50251735.7000803@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/10/2012 8:57 AM, Mark Banner
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class=" cite" id="mid_5025054B_5010002_mozilla_com"
cite="mid:5025054B.5010002@mozilla.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/08/2012 06:18, Ludovic
Hirlimann wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class=" cite" id="mid_5023483B_4020406_mozilla_com"
cite="mid:5023483B.4020406@mozilla.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
so<br>
<blockquote class=" cite" id="Cite_0" 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>
</blockquote>
<br>
Keeping them separate gives the opportunity for intermediate
releases if we have a significant amount of features ready. If
we didn't have separate channels, then we wouldn't be able to do
those intermediate releases because we'd be breaking the ESR
promise. As we don't yet know the amount of contributions that
we'll get going forward I feel it would be better to keep the
opportunity available rather than take it away. We can always
review it in a year or two.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Would it be possible to guesstimate what would happen in an
"average" release cycle by looking at the changes from TB 10-now?<br>
</blockquote>
+1<br>
<br>
So far this has been fairly confusing to me; for the "normal"
release channel (if you didn't suggest scrapping it altogether) a
house-number like "updates not less than 8 weeks but never more than
4 months" would be helpful.<br>
<br>
thanks<br>
Axel<br>
<br>
Axel<br>
</body>
</html>