Interesting talk by Mozilla's director of release engineering. http://youtu.be/7j0NDGJVROI

Am 20.01.2014, 05:32 Uhr, schrieb Martin Nowak <code@dawg.eu>:

> Interesting talk by Mozilla's director of release engineering.
> http://youtu.be/7j0NDGJVROI

I didn't watch it, because after a few minutes into the talk I realized: A guy from Mozilla talks at Google about the new release scheme they adapted from Google's own Chrome browser and ruined their browser with heaps of regression bugs and confusion about versions. Whatever the success of Firefox is, it was there before they changed their release process. That said it was a lesson learned, so maybe the talk wasn't that bad objectively.
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Marco Leise <Marco.Leise@gmx.de> wrote:

> Am 20.01.2014, 05:32 Uhr, schrieb Martin Nowak <code@dawg.eu>:
>
>
>  Interesting talk by Mozilla's director of release engineering.
>> http://youtu.be/7j0NDGJVROI
>>
>
> I didn't watch it, because after a few minutes into the talk I realized: A guy from Mozilla talks at Google about the new release scheme they adapted from Google's own Chrome browser and ruined their browser with heaps of regression bugs and confusion about versions. Whatever the success of Firefox is, it was there before they changed their release process. That said it was a lesson learned, so maybe the talk wasn't that bad objectively.
>

 Have the regressions been continuous? Or just during the initial change in
process? I didn't notice any stability changes. The version numbers have
nothing to do with the talk.

Here is where they show their workflow (have to go back for where they
start talking about workflow)
http://youtu.be/7j0NDGJVROI?t=50m24s

It looks like the structure Debian uses

ash => experimental
inbound => unstable
central => testing
aurora => testing
beta => stable
release => stable

The arrows suggest that changes are allows made to the stablest development branch and push back from there, so no cherry-picking.

-- 
Jesse Phillips

Am 21.01.2014, 17:51 Uhr, schrieb Jesse Phillips <jesse.k.phillips@gmail.com>:

> Have the regressions been continuous? Or just during the initial change in
> process? I didn't notice any stability changes. The version numbers have
> nothing to do with the talk.

I have only been using Firefox to test a HTML5/JavaScript project at the time of the change which honestly felt like a struggle to keep up with Google suddenly dishing out new browser versions every few weeks. For a long time FF was a pretty stable target, then in the middle of our development two new versions of FF were published that broke something else in HTML5 and kept me coming back to extending the "browser quirks" secion. Some people even reported bugs in my program, while using beta versions. One of that betas later got stable with a known regression still in it (cocerning HTML5 canvas glow IIRC). So yeah, this release process at that time was more than questionable. I cannot say if that changed later along the way, since I didn't use FF often after that project.
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta