[3561] in Release_7.7_team
Re: More thought about 1.1 vs 1.0.1
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (t. belton)
Fri Oct 11 14:13:57 2002
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 14:13:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: "t. belton" <tbelton@MIT.EDU>
To: Bill Cattey <wdc@MIT.EDU>
cc: <release-team@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <1034283113.15378.13.camel@tokata.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33L.0210111404380.3483-100000@iphigenia.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Yes no maybe.
1.0 is considered a consumer release. That seems clear from their comments
about 1.0. And 1.0.1 is a patch to that release which they provided *as
support* for 1.0, which they strongly encourage 1.0 users to apply.
Those, taken together, tell me that Mozilla is not planning on leaving
end-user browser distribution/support entirely to other people. Remember
that there may be reasons why Mozilla is coy about this; they have certain
legal leftovers with Netscape that mean they can't seem too much like
they're trying to steal Netscape's end-user business.
1.1 is, I think, useful to have - it has features and such that people
have requested. I think there's enough field-testing on 1.1 that has come
back with mostly-clean reports that I'm not worried it will crash and burn
overmuch. If it does, we tell people that 1.0 is still available.
Now, what this does affect is the DEFAULT in infoagents - and the local
echoing. If you would like to keep 1.0 the default but make 1.1 available
as a must-run-by-hand in infoagents for those in the know, I can go with
that. But I don't think there's a good reason not to install 1.1.
As for 1.0.1, I already planned to apply 1.0.1 on the Linux side simply
because, again, there is no good reason not to apply those bugfixes to
1.0. I've checked for breakage reports and there seems to be no downside.
1.0.1 is really a PATCH, not a separate release, and I hope to apply only
the changed files right on top of 1.0. I have it downloaded, I just
haven't done that yet.
1.0.1 on Suns - well, I keep hoping one will emerge. (It might, you know,
if someone decides to compile one and make it available.) I'm not opposed
to pounding through the source code and compiling our own, and I've
thought about it, but it may take a while to get to; it is not a trivial
time allotment.
Does any of this sound unreasonable?
On 10 Oct 2002, Bill Cattey wrote:
> Having not thought about the question of 1.1 vs 1.0.1 for a while, I
> went to mozilla.org to search for Mozilla binaries in case I'd luck out
> and find some that others had not found.
>
> I looked for distributions, and I reviewed the Mozilla road map.
>
> I think I understand where Mozilla is positioning itself, and I'm coming
> to believe that it might be a LESS good idea to jump into 1.1. Here's
> why:
>
> Every download page whether it be for 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.1, or 1.2 contains
> the disclaimer, "We make binary versions of Mozilla 1.0.1 available for
> testing purposes only!"
>
> I'm finally making an interpretation of this warning that the ONLY
> binaries we can expect to see on Mozilla.org are ones where the
> developer community considers crucial for testing new functionality.
> Binaries intended for end-user use, are expected to come from third
> parties like Netscape and Sun! This means that we can expect to see NO
> binaries for 1.x.1 releases. If we make this interpretation, it neatly
> explains why we only see 1.1 binaries, and why, instead of seeing 1.1.1,
> we saw 1.2 alpha.
>
> I think going to 1.1 is a LESS good idea because, if we're expecting to
> see bugfix updates to 1.1, we WONT. We'll have put ourselves onto the
> FEATURE track rather than the STABLE track.
>
> I fear that the most logical thing to do is to build Mozilla 1.0.1
> ourselves. This will enable us to keep in sync with the STABLE track,
> rather than hitching ourselves to the FEATURE track.
>
> -wdc
>
>
