[3562] in Release_7.7_team
Re: More thought about 1.1 vs 1.0.1
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Cattey)
Fri Oct 11 14:31:14 2002
From: Bill Cattey <wdc@MIT.EDU>
To: "t. belton" <tbelton@mit.edu>
Cc: release-team@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.33L.0210111404380.3483-100000@iphigenia.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 11 Oct 2002 14:31:12 -0400
Message-Id: <1034361072.29416.0.camel@tokata.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
ALL of what you say sounds reasonable.
We should definitely proceed with upgrading to 1.0.1 where we can, and
hope for a Sun binary from somewhere.
We should definitely proceed with bringing up 1.1.
We should definitely continue to agonize over which should be the
default. :-)
-wdc
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 14:13, t. belton wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
>
