- 11:00am PST (19:00 UTC)
- Mozilla HQ, 1st floor conference table
- join irc.mozilla.org #bonecho for backchannel
- Firefox 2 Post Mortem
- Firefox 220.127.116.11 Planning
- Future of these meetings
- Any other business
Firefox 2 Post Mortem
- the press has been very positive
- schrep: and people seem to dig the nature of this release, which isn't about shoving more in the box, but about keeping true to the slim & trim nature of Firefox
- smooth release
- download numbers show maintained level of interest (average download rate is 13/s, peak of 30/s) across the world
Firefox 18.104.22.168 Planning
- triage to start shortly on 22.214.171.124 nominations
- schrep: dveditz and I talked about this, and it should be a joint 126.96.36.199 and 188.8.131.52 driving process
- triage meetings should be mon/wed/fri at 10am PST (same number), there's a long backlog
- planned on doing 184.108.40.206 in December, which is six weeks away, so code freeze would be in a week and a half
- should also determine the driving team tomorrow as well
- spitzer: there are a few issues with Firefox 2 that might keep us from wanting to advertise the 1.5 -> 2 update since it could regress functionality:
- Flash issues with Mac Firefox 2.0 (see bug 355071 and bug 356694)
- there are some locale changes planned for 220.127.116.11 as well
- some other potential reasons for waiting (to quote dveditz:) "avoid upgrade fatique, get more extension compatibility, make sure there are no serious issues with the 2.0 release."
- schrep: earliest advertising opportunity wouldn't be until after Nov 7, but it's hard to answer this question without understanding what the update to 18.104.22.168 would be. Need to answer the question of "is 22.214.171.124 that much different from 2"?
- beltzner: anecdotally, I know that a lot of 1.5.0.x users are waiting for the update to 2, feeling that "Firefox will update itself when it's ready."
- schrep: we should probably discuss this issue in more depth next Tuesday, after we've got a better handle on what's available, and when actually advertising the upgrade to users is even a technical possibility
- dveditz: do we have to call the version 126.96.36.199 in the user-facing screen?
- spitzer: we might be able to do that, yes, let me follow up here
- spitzer: yes, we can make the string say "Firefox whatever-we-want" as long as we build the right snippet there
- beltzner: need to be careful to pay attention to L10N issues here
- vista support: are all patches on the trunk ready to be applied to the branch?
- rs: several things are still being worked on, actually; about 3 or 4 patches that need to be reviewed
- rs: aiming to be done by this weekend, will make sure that they're all nominated for blocking 188.8.131.52 in time for tomorrow's triage
- schrep: just so people know, I'm considering the Vista updates to be slippable if they start putting the 184.108.40.206 update at risk
- basil: do we need to fake the version number to one where it's no longer covered by Vista's shim-list? will putting Vista support in 220.127.116.11 be moot since it's bypassed by the ship list?
- rs: there should be a way around that using manifest files, but we should obviously test this; we were expecting to ship Vista support as 18.104.22.168. The shim shouldn't adversely affect the changes that we're making, though, so we need to test it.
- axel: I'd like to start approving the L10N patches for 22.214.171.124. Any objections?
- schrep: what's the testing process there?
- axel: looking at the diff, really
- schrep: yes, we should go ahead with this as soon as possible
Future of these meetings
- should they become Firefox 2.0.0.x? meetings? Who should drive?
- we'll continue it next week, but after that it will likely go to the rotating team leads for the dot-dot releases
Any other business