<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 15/08/13 22:26, Mark Banner wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:520D3973.6040105@mozilla.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</blockquote>
I've always been in favor of this.<br>
<br>
make testing easier (I don't need to test ESR so I can spend more
time on the release). It gives Enterprise user the stability they
want - with the caveats of major updates - but it makes it easier
for them to use the beta to test a few releases before. I don't see
what we might miss by dropping it - as anyway not so many people
where aware of this.<br>
<br>
I do believe that enterprise user should voice what they think about
it so adding them on cc here.<br>
<br>
Ludo<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
[:Usul] SRE Team at Mozilla
QA Lead fof Thunderbird
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://sietch-tabr.tumblr.com/">http://sietch-tabr.tumblr.com/</a></pre>
</body>
</html>