<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Well, I thought about this for a while, in fact, I even started
writing several paragraphs on why we shouldn't do what you
suggested. However, as I thought about it some more, I must agree
with your points. The ideal solution would be to keep our version
number based on Gecko, while actually releasing a new product every
6 weeks. Of course, that simply won't happen because of lack of
resources and frankly, lack of product. There would be no real
point.<br>
<br>
Jumps from 17 to 24 to 31, etc, are very confusing for our users and
may cause them to lose faith in its' development. Even looking at
the Thunderbird page causes people to wonder. (Though the version of
Thunderbird proceeding 24 should have some large changes, and I want
to redo the site then, which will help). Anyway, this kind of
jumping is just not beneficial in any way, so I agree that
Thunderbird 20XY needs to be the future.<br>
<br>
Thunderbird 2014 makes the product seem more developed,
professional, and trust-worthy. Of course, anyone with counter
points should most definitely respond in objection. I, on the other
hand, second the motion for Thunderbird 2014. I assume though that
people from within Mozilla will really make the final ruling on
this.<br>
<br>
<br>
Josiah Bruner,<br>
<i><small>Thunderbird Front-end,<br>
Cocoa/Widget</small></i><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/4/13 7:56 PM, Unicorn.Consulting
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51D60BA4.5060205@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<font face="Arial">If this has been discussed in the past, sorry
for trying to bring it up again.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Matt<br>
</font>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin Franklin</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
tb-planning mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tb-planning@mozilla.org">tb-planning@mozilla.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning">https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>