Confirmed users
2,492
edits
Firefox/Features/Installers: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Problems/Issues
| Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
'''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. | '''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 | * One of the issues that keep coming up easing the ability of side-by-side installs for web developers. | ||
* | * After speaking with Alex Limi, it's my understanding that this is a profile problem and not really related to app naming. It sounds to me like if we were to have separate app names for Aurora, Beta, Release or just call them all Firefox which results in the "install on top of scenario", this makes know difference to web developers. They still end up with the same difficulties in running side-by-side installs that they do today. They really want to get their data and have it available for all the app versions they are running. | ||
'''5.''' Per the requests from Marketing and Product (see first table), they want the apps for the channels on Windows and Mac called.. | '''5.''' Per the requests from Marketing and Product (see first table), they want the apps for the channels on Windows and Mac called.. | ||