<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Regardless, although it would be my preference to change our
versioning pattern, I do understand that this quite low priority.
Not to mention, again, that Mozilla probably doesn't favor a change,
so this probably won't go anywhere.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Josiah Bruner<br>
<i>Thunderbird Front end,<br>
Widget/Cocoa Developer<br>
<br>
</i>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/5/13 11:00 AM, Josiah Bruner
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51D6DFA3.9020904@programmer.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Could you give some examples of the potential issues? Thanks!<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Josiah Bruner<br>
<i>Thunderbird Front end,</i><i><br>
</i><i>Widget/Cocoa Developer</i><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/5/13 10:54 AM, Wayne Mery
(Thunderbird QA) wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51D6DE2E.3060003@lehigh.edu" type="cite">On
7/4/2013 7:56 PM, Unicorn.Consulting wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">If this has been discussed in the past,
sorry for trying to bring it up <br>
again. <br>
<br>
With the first release of Thunderbird under it's new release
model I <br>
think that it is important to de-emphasise the version number
as the <br>
jump from 17 to 24 will leave many wondering what is going
on. To this <br>
end I suggest that the version number become an
internal/troubleshooting <br>
item much as the geko version has done and that we release
Thunderbird <br>
with a year appended as has become almost dejure over the last
decade. <br>
Yes I know everyone else has started going back to numbers,
but <br>
Thunderbird is not in the Chrome race to 1000 and we need to
make it <br>
clear we are not. <br>
<br>
Years ago when products started being released as year based
versions I <br>
thought that is was the silliest of ideas, but in this case
where we <br>
will be having an annual release it makes sense to name the
product <br>
intrinsically for the year of release. Given the lateness on
the year I <br>
suggest we release Thunderbird 2014 instead of Thunderbird
24. This <br>
approach sets the user expectation on release schedules
correctly to an <br>
annual or more cycle, makes it easy for even the slowest among
them to <br>
work out that their Thunderbird is 5 years old and in my
opinion <br>
differentiates the versioning from Firefox so people can stop
asking <br>
"Firefox is at Version 20 where is the Thunderbird update. <br>
<br>
Matt <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
There has been surprisingly few questions about version numbers
from testers of early releases, as well as users who see Firefox
version number incrementing and Thunderbird is not. Thus, I
believe the numbers version jump is a non-issue. I also believe
that if we use some other scheme, expecially one that
disconnects from the "mozilla standard", it may create more
issues (and not just the one aceman points out) than it solves.
<br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
tb-planning mailing list <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:tb-planning@mozilla.org">tb-planning@mozilla.org</a>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning">https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<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>