Linked by lemur2 on Thu 17th Mar 2011 22:12 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones According to a post on the mozilla.dev.planning Google Group by Mozilla Senior Director of Engineering, Damon Sicore, the ship date for the stable version of Firefox 4, Tuesday 22 March, has been approved by Mozilla's IT and Marketing teams. Sicore notes that, should the developers discover any last-second blocker bugs that would prevent the final release, a second release candidate would be issued "as soon as possible" and the ship date would be reset. So far, the first RC has "received a very warm welcome", said Sicore.
Thread beginning with comment 466861
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Sounds good, but ...
by saynte on Sat 19th Mar 2011 06:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sounds good, but ..."
saynte
Member since:
2007-12-10

Just examine any set of release notes, http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/4.0b11/releasenotes/.

If those features you mention were deemed essential to the release, then I feel that they should have been included before the betas began.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Sounds good, but ...
by smitty on Sat 19th Mar 2011 07:32 in reply to "RE[6]: Sounds good, but ..."
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

Just examine any set of release notes, http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/4.0b11/releasenotes/.

Yeah, I have been. Let's take a look at exactly what was changed in that b11 build.

Support for the proposed Do Not Track ("DNT") header
Connection status messages are now shown in a small overlay
WebGL has been re-enabled on Linux
The default homepage design has been refreshed
Firefox no longer switches into offline mode automatically


That comes out to:
2 smallish UI changes, including 1 that was fixing something highly complained about (so you could call it a bugfix)
2 bug fixes
Adding the DNT header, a very small feature that didn't affect the release at all. It was done, and any regressions would just result in it being dropped completely. Note that the browser itself does nothing except send the extra flag to servers when it requests anything - it's virtually nothing to implement.

No big deal, there.

If those features you mention were deemed essential to the release, then I feel that they should have been included before the betas began.

Ah, so your real argument is that they should have just renamed the releases. So that beta 6 and 7 would be alphas, and beta 8-12 would have been called beta 1-5. Ok, whatever. That's just semantics, I don't really care what they name them.

Edited 2011-03-19 07:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Sounds good, but ...
by saynte on Sat 19th Mar 2011 11:33 in reply to "RE[7]: Sounds good, but ..."
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10

It is "just semantics" in exactly the same way a finished product is different than a beta. The two words mean different things, abuse the terms and they lose their meaning.

The first beta was 9 months ago... the way things are progressing it will likely be almost a year between first-beta and release. It just seems like they tried to do too much, an admission of that is the proposed change in release schedules.

Reply Parent Score: 1