<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi All,<br>
<br>
A couple of months ago, it was proposed in the status meetings that
we drop the optional intermediate release that was specified as an
option in our <a
href="https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird/New_Release_and_Governance_Model">governance
model</a> that we discussed last year.<br>
<br>
I'd like us to have a wider discussion on this, and so I have put
together this proposal. We need to come to a resolution before the
end of August, so that we have time to put anything necessary in
place before we get to releasing TB 24.<br>
<br>
<b>What is being proposed?</b><br>
<ul>
<li>
Drop the optional second release part way through the ESR cycle</li>
<li>
Merge both the mainstream ('release') and ESR update channels
into the mainstream channel </li>
</ul>
<b>How would this affect development?</b><br>
<ul>
<li>
The development cycles remain the same.</li>
<li>
The optional release was to enable significant new innovations
to be released at shorter intervals. Obviously this would no
longer be possible without re-separating the channels.</li>
</ul>
<p><b>How would this affect ESR?</b><br>
</p>
<p>I'm still examining the possibilities here, but my ideal would
probably be to:<br>
</p>
<ul>
<li>Release mainstream TB 24 off the ESR branch<br>
</li>
<li>When the next ESR is released, mainstream would be
automatically updated to it</li>
<ul>
<li>However, we would do two more TB 24.0.x releases, that
enterprises could pick up and deploy if they didn't want to
upgrade to the next ESR straight away.<br>
</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<b>Why is this being proposed?</b><br>
<br>
This came out of a discussion at one of the status meetings. The two
channels are effectively the same with the only difference in builds
being the channel id, there's no significant point in unnecessarily
confusing users.<br>
<br>
Whilst I've been keen to keep the possibility for the intermediate
release open, the practicalities are that I don't see us needing to
do an intermediate release, and like was commented at the original
summit where we discussed the governance, doing an intermediate
release in our current set-up may be complicated, especially for
l10n and back-porting<br>
<br>
Additionally, having two separate channels that aren't varying means
that we have to have duplicated builds. This means we have to go
through the build and release process twice. Not having to do this
would cut down the complications and also allow more time for other
activities.<br>
<br>
<br>
As I said above, feedback and comments are welcome - this is a
proposal.<br>
<br>
Mark<br>
</body>
</html>