[freehunter]

I wish they'd just bump the version number to 30 then save major revision numbers for major revisions. I don't see anything in here that would warrant anything but a bump from 15 to 15.5 under the old Firefox revision standards.

[superxor]

I think it's time to cut this 'version number' debate. Mozilla has been pretty clear about the plan to use such a system. The only problem was from enterprise users which Mozilla has addressed. The background auto-update is in the stable builds now, should be enough to keep FF updated. I am really tired of this versioning non-sense. Users complained, Mozilla addressed legitimate concerns. Now it's just a difference in perspective. Seems like the new system is actually helping Mozilla put out updates faster. Lets move on.

[freehunter]

I know they've been very open about why they're using major revision numbers for minor features. I don't like it when Chrome does it either. I just don't like the arms race that is developing to have the higher revision number. I just get a little disappointed when I see a new major number and the changelog is minor additions and bugfixes.

Just because Mozilla has their reason for making the change doesn't mean everyone has to be happy about the change. I'm not complaining about Firefox, I'm complaining about the number, and the corruption of what that number is supposed to mean.

[FooBarWidget]

The fact that you're talking about "major revision number" means that you're still thinking about this from the old perspective. There is no "major version number". There is just a number that gets incremented with each release. They could have just as easily used the date as version number. Now I'm thinking that maybe they should, just to get rid of this senseless discussion.

[Achshar]

> I just get a little disappointed when I see a new major number and the changelog is minor additions and bugfixes.

Don't be. There will be no "major additions" anymore. They will now release small features, quickly. So no major feature bump. Hence no need to wait for one either. It's like a number of small steps instead of one giant leap.

[Steuard]

I don't see this as an arms race at all. (Heck, it took a major outcry just to convince Mozilla to show the version number in a place where normal users could find it.)

I agree that it's a redefinition of what "version number" means: now it's essentially date based, rather than feature based (though the two are obviously correlated). But I can't see any obvious reason to read "redefinition" as "corruption". It's just different, and both Mozilla and Google had sensible reasons for making that change.

In fact, their decisions may make it worth questioning those assumptions more broadly. Is there a chance that your version numbering method is causing subtle problems for your own development process?

[mburns]

The Linux kernel does it too. Ubuntu and Gnome do a steady release as well, just not quite as rapidly. Chrome isn't alone by a longshot.

This rapid release schedule is just the most efficient way for these teams to deliver new features in a stable way. Taking 1-2 years to land code in the next major, stable version of the product just isn't practical anymore.

People get way too hung up on the actual number.

[bryanlarsen]

I think even the Firefox team would agree with you in saying that their version numbers are now meaningless. Which is why they are slowly removing the version number from every user visible interaction.

The point is that Firefox never wants to ever have a "major release" again. Small frequent changes work much better for everybody. So what are their options? Keep incrementing the minor number? The major major number then becomes meaningless and you end up with absurdities like "2.6.39".

I think the solution they chose is much better than the one Linus chose. What's the difference between 2.6.39 and 3.0? About the same as 2.6.38 to 2.6.39, and 3.0 to 3.1. Eventually they'll get up to 3.BIG and he'll call it 4.0 for no particularly reason.

[chousuke]

The thing is, given the Firefox project's new development model, their old versioning scheme makes absolutely no sense. Deciding which version numbner to bump would be completely arbitrary and exactly as informative as just using a single number that tells the user "this version is newer than the one with a lower number", which is the only useful information they can convey using version numbers.

Would you also be one to complain about the Linux kernel versioning scheme? It conveys exactly as much information as Firefox' does and works on the same principle. They just happen to have that extra first "major" number there, but it exists only for compatibility reasons. The change from 2.6.39 to 3.0 was exactly as "major" as pretty much every "point" release since 2.6.0. Yet I don't see people complaining about the version numbers every time a new kernel version is released.

[freehunter]

I had originally included Linux in my complaint, but removed it because I didn't want to open that can of worms.

[cutie]

Linux versioning now makes more sense--in that every new release is a minor release. Fits better with the historical use of such numbers.

[sabret00the]

It's worth mentioning that the complete bug list is a lot larger: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/16.0/releasenotes/bugli...

[gulbrandr]

Indeed, there seems to be 1989 bug fixes!

[darkstalker]

How come no one complains about Chrome version numbers?

[freehunter]

In a reply to someone else, I did complain about Chrome's version numbers. That too bothers me. I have to imagine this issue is similar to people who complain about Windows RT's app model. Apple did it from day one, so there are few complaints. Microsoft switched to it just to keep up, which causes a lot of complaints. In this situation, Chrome is Apple who did it from day one without causing a major fuss, and Firefox is Microsoft who switched to it to great fanfare in order to keep up with the competition.

[Scene_Cast2]

Yep, same feeling here. There seems to be a new trend of a shifted decimal point: "beta"-ish feel until version 10, and a .1 version bump is now a new release.