lifecycle policy

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
311 messages Options
1234 ... 16
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

lifecycle policy

philou-6
Hi,

I'm currently using version 3.6. I want to stay on 3.6 as long as
possible but I'm not sure how much longer Mozilla will support it. Is
there a lifecycle policy in place for versions. Are there any know End
of Life/Support dates?

best regards,
Philippe
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lifecycle policy

Henri Sivonen
> I'm currently using version 3.6. I want to stay on 3.6 as long as
> possible

Why do you want to stay on 3.6 instead of upgrading to the latest version?

--
Henri Sivonen
[hidden email]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lifecycle policy

beltzner
What Henri meant to say is that there is no policy. Mozilla attempts to keep
old versions updated until users have had an opportunity to.upgrade, but
does not guarantee that older versions will be supported once a new version
is available.

(In the past, though, Mozilla has kept older versions up to date for much
longer than this)

cheers,
mike
On 17/05/2011 9:09 AM, "Henri Sivonen" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> I'm currently using version 3.6. I want to stay on 3.6 as long as
>> possible
>
> Why do you want to stay on 3.6 instead of upgrading to the latest version?
>
> --
> Henri Sivonen
> [hidden email]
> http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
> _______________________________________________
> dev-planning mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lifecycle policy

philou-6
In reply to this post by Henri Sivonen
Hi,

thanks for your reply.
In fact, I make spécific dev under 3.6 which don't work on 4.0. I
would like to know how long I have to change all.

Do you think Mozilla with keep version under LTS (long term support)
like Ubuntu for example, since they will launch a new version every 6
month or less (?)

Best regards,
Philippe
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lifecycle policy

Mike Connor-4
From previous statements, there is no plan at this time to do an LTS-like distribution.

-- Mike

On 2011-05-17, at 10:35 AM, philou wrote:

> Hi,
>
> thanks for your reply.
> In fact, I make spécific dev under 3.6 which don't work on 4.0. I
> would like to know how long I have to change all.
>
> Do you think Mozilla with keep version under LTS (long term support)
> like Ubuntu for example, since they will launch a new version every 6
> month or less (?)
>
> Best regards,
> Philippe
> _______________________________________________
> dev-planning mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning

_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lifecycle policy

Nicholas Nethercote
In reply to this post by philou-6
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:35 AM, philou <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> In fact, I make spécific dev under 3.6 which don't work on 4.0. I
> would like to know how long I have to change all.

Everyone's being very cautious in this thread to make no promises at
all.  But I suspect, based on historical data, that it is likely
(though not guaranteed) that 3.6 will be supported for several months
at least.  In particular, we're only just about to stop supporting
3.5, and I haven't heard anything yet about dropping 3.6 support.

Am I completeness off-base here?

philou, with respect to the 3.6-specific development you have done, if
you describe what you've done I'm sure someone could help you
transition your code to 4.0+.  (But dev-platform would be a better
place to ask about that.)

Nick
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lifecycle policy

Matt Brubeck-3
In reply to this post by philou-6
Long ago during the Firefox 2.0 cycle, Mozilla's policy was that each major version would be supported for six months after the next major version was released [1].  Historically, support has actually lasted longer than that.   For example, Firefox 3.0 updates lasted until March 30, 2010 (nearly a year after Firefox 3.5 was released), and Firefox 3.5 is still supported today (more than a year after Firefox 3.6 was released).

However, as far as I know there is no current policy specifying a specific length of support for Firefox 3.6 or 4.  For Firefox 5 and later, the new version will *be* the security update for the previous version, so users will need to stay on the release channel to be supported and receive updates.

1. https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=ReleaseRoadmap&oldid=168833
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lifecycle policy

Mike Shaver
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Matt Brubeck <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Long ago during the Firefox 2.0 cycle, Mozilla's policy was that each major version would be supported for six months after the next major version was released [1].

"up to six months", actually, though as you say we have always (IIRC)
gone a fair bit longer than that.

Mike
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lifecycle policy

Daniel Veditz-2
In reply to this post by Matt Brubeck-3
On 5/18/11 10:15 AM, Matt Brubeck wrote:
> However, as far as I know there is no current policy specifying a
> specific length of support for Firefox 3.6 or 4.

Several people have repeatedly said in public places (newsgroups,
planning meeting, Monday meeting; could not find a blog or wiki
page) that Firefox 5 will be the security update to Firefox 4, and
that there will be no 4.0.2 unless some issue between now and
shipping Fx5 requires a chemspill response.

-Dan Veditz
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lifecycle policy

Asa Dotzler-2
In reply to this post by Matt Brubeck-3
On 5/18/2011 10:15 AM, Matt Brubeck wrote:
> Long ago during the Firefox 2.0 cycle, Mozilla's policy was that each major version would be supported for six months after the next major version was released [1].  Historically, support has actually lasted longer than that.   For example, Firefox 3.0 updates lasted until March 30, 2010 (nearly a year after Firefox 3.5 was released), and Firefox 3.5 is still supported today (more than a year after Firefox 3.6 was released).
>
> However, as far as I know there is no current policy specifying a specific length of support for Firefox 3.6 or 4.  For Firefox 5 and later, the new version will *be* the security update for the previous version, so users will need to stay on the release channel to be supported and receive updates.
>
> 1. https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=ReleaseRoadmap&oldid=168833


I think we have three obvious options:

1) Just do what we've done in the past and continue offering updates to
3.6 and 4.0 until we are comfortable with the balance between "as long
as it takes to get most users migrated forward" and "until porting
security fixes back becomes unbearable".

2) Pull all the levers at our disposal, including automatic updates to
new major versions, as quickly as we can and stop back-porting all
security updates.

3) Treat 3.6 users differently from 4.0 users because the jump from 3.6
to 4 is much larger than the jump from 4.0 to 5.0. Keep supporting 3.6
with security updates and increasingly loud prompted updates to our
latest release until that number of users is low enough to make the
updates automatic. Make Firefox 5 an automatic update for Firefox 4 users.

I think 3 is the path we're on right now.

- A
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lifecycle policy

Robert Kaiser
In reply to this post by Matt Brubeck-3
Mike Shaver schrieb:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Matt Brubeck<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> Long ago during the Firefox 2.0 cycle, Mozilla's policy was that each major version would be supported for six months after the next major version was released [1].
>
> "up to six months", actually, though as you say we have always (IIRC)
> gone a fair bit longer than that.

Erm, IIRC, it was "at least six months" - and we probably are somewhat
bound to that earlier promise still for 3.6 - we should not be for 4 or
later, but I think we didn't say that very loudly, even though it's been
our understanding for some time.

Robert Kaiser


--
Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never
meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible
arguments that we as a community needs answers to. And most of the time,
I even appreciate irony and fun! :)
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lifecycle policy

Robert Kaiser
In reply to this post by Matt Brubeck-3
Matt Brubeck schrieb:
> However, as far as I know there is no current policy specifying a specific length of support for Firefox 3.6 or 4.

We never stated a _specific_ length ever, we stated a minimum, and for
3.6 we probably need to follow that one.

Firefox 4 should be treated as a member of the new breed in that regard,
and have 5 as its security update.

Actually, we are prolonging the security support for 4 and later, it's
not just a minimum of six months any more, now it's "forever", just that
the security updates always bring features and a new "version" as well. ;-)

Robert Kaisre


--
Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never
meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible
arguments that we as a community needs answers to. And most of the time,
I even appreciate irony and fun! :)
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lifecycle policy

Asa Dotzler-2
In reply to this post by Robert Kaiser
On 5/18/2011 2:00 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote:

> Mike Shaver schrieb:
>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Matt Brubeck<[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>> Long ago during the Firefox 2.0 cycle, Mozilla's policy was that each
>>> major version would be supported for six months after the next major
>>> version was released [1].
>>
>> "up to six months", actually, though as you say we have always (IIRC)
>> gone a fair bit longer than that.
>
> Erm, IIRC, it was "at least six months" - and we probably are somewhat
> bound to that earlier promise still for 3.6

Actually that's wrong. The exact text of our commitment was:

"Last release to be supported with official security/stability updates
no more than six months following general available of current release"

You can find this throughout our old roadmap documents.

But we're so far past 6 months for 3.6 that it's a moot point there.

> we should not be for 4 or later, but I think we didn't say that

We've been saying it pretty loudly since before 4 shipped. I'm not going
to worry too much there.

- A
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lifecycle policy

Asa Dotzler-2
In reply to this post by Robert Kaiser
On 5/18/2011 2:03 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Matt Brubeck schrieb:
>> However, as far as I know there is no current policy specifying a
>> specific length of support for Firefox 3.6 or 4.
>
> We never stated a _specific_ length ever, we stated a minimum

As I said in my earlier comment, that is incorrect. We stated a maximum
-- one that we've regularly ignored for the last few years in favor of
trying to keep users on a secure version of Firefox.

- A
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lifecycle policy

John Thomsen
In reply to this post by Asa Dotzler-2
On 2011-05-18 23:26, Asa Dotzler wrote:

> On 5/18/2011 2:00 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
>> Erm, IIRC, it was "at least six months" - and we probably are somewhat
>> bound to that earlier promise still for 3.6
>
> Actually that's wrong. The exact text of our commitment was:
>
> "Last release to be supported with official security/stability updates
> no more than six months following general available of current release"
>
> You can find this throughout our old roadmap documents.

Okay.

It is also possible to find the opposite statement. According to [1]
talking about Firefox 3:

"our policy is that there's a minimum of 6 months support after n+1
version is out"

However, it doesn't really matter, because it is hard to gracefully kill
these old major versions within 6 months anyway.


> But we're so far past 6 months for 3.6 that it's a moot point there.

You're thinking of 3.5 not 3.6, I believe. See list below compiled from
release notes and other notes:

FF 1.0 had updates for about 6 months after 1.5
FF 1.5 had updates for about 7 months after 2.0
FF 2.0 had updates for about 6 months after 3.0
FF 3.0 had updates for about 9 months after 3.5
FF 3.5 is still alive 16 months after 3.6
FF 3.6 is still alive 2 months after 4.0
FF 4.0 will be unsupported the moment FF 5.0 is released
FF 5.0 will be unsupported the moment FF 6.0 is released
FF 6.0 will be unsupported the moment FF 7.0 is released
...


Regards,
John

[1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Planning/2010-01-27
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lifecycle policy

Asa Dotzler-2
In reply to this post by Asa Dotzler-2
On 5/18/2011 3:37 PM, John Thomsen wrote:

> On 2011-05-18 23:26, Asa Dotzler wrote:
>> On 5/18/2011 2:00 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
>>> Erm, IIRC, it was "at least six months" - and we probably are somewhat
>>> bound to that earlier promise still for 3.6
>>
>> Actually that's wrong. The exact text of our commitment was:
>>
>> "Last release to be supported with official security/stability updates
>> no more than six months following general available of current release"
>>
>> You can find this throughout our old roadmap documents.
>
> Okay.
>
> It is also possible to find the opposite statement. According to [1]
> talking about Firefox 3:
>
> "our policy is that there's a minimum of 6 months support after n+1
> version is out"

That's a mis-statement of our policy in a page of meeting notes. Sure
you can find all kinds of wrong information if you go digging for it.
The policy is a maximum of 6 months and it has been for years.

>
>> But we're so far past 6 months for 3.6 that it's a moot point there.
>
> You're thinking of 3.5 not 3.6, I believe.

Yes, I was confusing 3.6 and 3.6. Sorry about that. 3.6 will be getting
at least one more security and stability update at approximately the
same time as Firefox 5 is released.

- A
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lifecycle policy

Daniel Cater
> I was confusing 3.6 and 3.6.

Easily done!
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lifecycle policy

Robert Kaiser
In reply to this post by Asa Dotzler-2
John Thomsen schrieb:

> On 2011-05-18 23:26, Asa Dotzler wrote:
>> On 5/18/2011 2:00 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
>>> Erm, IIRC, it was "at least six months" - and we probably are somewhat
>>> bound to that earlier promise still for 3.6
>>
>> Actually that's wrong. The exact text of our commitment was:
>>
>> "Last release to be supported with official security/stability updates
>> no more than six months following general available of current release"
>>
>> You can find this throughout our old roadmap documents.

Interesting, do you have a link for that?

> It is also possible to find the opposite statement. According to [1]
> talking about Firefox 3:
>
> "our policy is that there's a minimum of 6 months support after n+1
> version is out"

That's how I remember it.

Robert Kaiser


--
Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never
meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible
arguments that we as a community needs answers to. And most of the time,
I even appreciate irony and fun! :)
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lifecycle policy

Asa Dotzler-2
On 5/18/2011 4:56 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote:

> John Thomsen schrieb:
>> On 2011-05-18 23:26, Asa Dotzler wrote:
>>> On 5/18/2011 2:00 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
>>>> Erm, IIRC, it was "at least six months" - and we probably are somewhat
>>>> bound to that earlier promise still for 3.6
>>>
>>> Actually that's wrong. The exact text of our commitment was:
>>>
>>> "Last release to be supported with official security/stability updates
>>> no more than six months following general available of current release"
>>>
>>> You can find this throughout our old roadmap documents.
>
> Interesting, do you have a link for that?

http://replay.web.archive.org/20060414183729/http://wiki.mozilla.org/ReleaseRoadmap

This is where we codified our commitment.

The update comment is "Last release to be supported with official
security/stability updates no more than six months following general
available of current release" and the text of the document is "the last
major release at any given time would be supported with security and
stability updates for up to six months following general availability of
the current release."

"no more than" and "for up to" both clearly communicate that 6 months is
the outer boundary, not the minimum.

That's the support commitment we made. There was no update to change the
commitment from a maximum of 6 months to a minimum of 6 months. Any
support longer than 6 months was because we were not satisfied with
leaving that many users behind. But that was not a change in our
commitment, it was us going above and beyond our commitment because we
thought, in particular circumstances, it was the right thing to do.

>> It is also possible to find the opposite statement. According to [1]
>> talking about Firefox 3:
>>
>> "our policy is that there's a minimum of 6 months support after n+1
>> version is out"
>
> That's how I remember it.

It's still wrong :-)

- A
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lifecycle policy

Robert Kaiser
Asa Dotzler schrieb:
> That's the support commitment we made. There was no update to change the
> commitment from a maximum of 6 months to a minimum of 6 months.

Wow, has been widely published wrongly, then, to the point that a lot of
us believed the wrong version. in the view of that, the new model is
even easier to adopt. ;-)

Robert Kaiser

--
Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never
meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible
arguments that we as a community needs answers to. And most of the time,
I even appreciate irony and fun! :)
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
1234 ... 16