"Rapid versioning"

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by vasa1, Jun 23, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    This is what someone who is actually involved in browser production has to say:
    from here:
    http://groups.google.com/group/mozi...read/thread/c6bfb8eb74bc0a04/e7272b73552dfd1a
     
  2. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
  3. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    I honestly think they shouldn't copy Chrome too much, especially on something as meaningless as this. Rapid development is nice, but not versioning.
     
  4. ABee

    ABee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Posts:
    330
    No, actually they couldn't have. I'm already running v. 4.0.1. of Firefox.
    It would have had to have been that "some other fractional value".

    Criminy. I hope they're better at keeping future version numbers straight than they are at deciding what they "could have" named 5.
     
  5. Spysnake

    Spysnake Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2009
    Posts:
    187
    I just wonder, where are the "breaking changes"? These kind of posts seem to try to justify the new versioning change, but nobody has real answers for why this needs to be done like this. It is only because Google does it? Is it because Mozilla wants to be "cool" too?

    And this "latest version of Firefox" thing. Really, one must face the fact that version numbers are for consumers too, especially on enthusiast level. As version changes, so does something else change, which may break functionality or make things more difficult. That's when the consumer wants to know what was the version before this latest version.
     
  6. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...r_over_Firefox_4_s_retirement_to_beat_IE_drum

     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.