[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.