Confirmed users
2,492
edits
Firefox/Features/Installers: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Problems/Issues
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
'''3.''' Currently we use the same app name and logo between Beta and Release. This decision was made for several reasons. Firstly, it minimizes release risks. We have an option NOT to rebuild the app. AV or other 3rd parties may look for "Firefox" versus "Firefox Beta" or the reversed. Having different app names can invalidate a lot of testing depending on the way 3rd party vendors interact with Firefox. Any changes between beta and release have the opportunity to cause regressions or interact differently with 3rd parties. Because going to release is an atomic operation, there is no time to really test these and changes have the potential to invalidate all the testing we have already done (as that testing was under different variables). The consequences here are that we can brand the start-up page, the about box and perhaps use a different logo but the application name has to stay the same. | '''3.''' Currently we use the same app name and logo between Beta and Release. This decision was made for several reasons. Firstly, it minimizes release risks. We have an option NOT to rebuild the app. AV or other 3rd parties may look for "Firefox" versus "Firefox Beta" or the reversed. Having different app names can invalidate a lot of testing depending on the way 3rd party vendors interact with Firefox. Any changes between beta and release have the opportunity to cause regressions or interact differently with 3rd parties. Because going to release is an atomic operation, there is no time to really test these and changes have the potential to invalidate all the testing we have already done (as that testing was under different variables). The consequences here are that we can brand the start-up page, the about box and perhaps use a different logo but the application name has to stay the same. | ||
'''4.''' There is somewhat of an inconsistency by using the same app name for Beta and Release but not Aurora. | '''4.''' There is somewhat of an inconsistency by using the same app name for Beta and Release but not Aurora. Why would we do that? If we are going to use Firefox for Beta and Release, why not do it for Aurora and then we can largely get rid of the problem in point #1. | ||
* One of the motivators for keeping it this way was to enable side-by-side installs for web developers. | * One of the motivators for keeping it this way was to enable side-by-side installs for web developers. | ||
* I did some digging into this and had trouble finding out the usage scenarios associated with these people. Imagine 5.0 has been released. It seems that web developers will probably be running a previous build (4.0.1), a current build (5.0) and maybe a Beta build (6.0b). In this case, all of these would have the app name Firefox.app and they would have to put them in different directories in order to run them side-by-side using different profiles anyhow. We have made a change since FF4 and both the Beta and Release have the same app name. If they are in the same directory, they will replace each other when you install. | * I did some digging into this and had trouble finding out the usage scenarios associated with these people. Imagine 5.0 has been released. It seems that web developers will probably be running a previous build (4.0.1), a current build (5.0) and maybe a Beta build (6.0b). In this case, all of these would have the app name Firefox.app and they would have to put them in different directories in order to run them side-by-side using different profiles anyhow. We have made a change since FF4 and both the Beta and Release have the same app name. If they are in the same directory, they will replace each other when you install. | ||