|
|
|
|
|
|
by cpeterso
4997 days ago
|
|
|
I agree. Chrome does well with just three channels: Dev, Beta, and Release (ignoring the Canary channel as a special case of Dev). I support shortening the release cycle (to maybe 4 weeks) and increasing the number of Beta users. Having two channels (Aurora and Beta) between dev and release is useful because it widens the user population as the release stabilizes. As you point out, some bugs can only be found by increasing the test population, rather than the test time. Early adopters that install Aurora or Beta are not representative of the "Joe User" population, who probably suffer from malware, anti-virus software, and older hardware. (posted from Firefox Nightly 19.0a1 :) |
|
|
Like Aurora is a special case of Nightly? What's the difference? (I'm not familiar with the Chrome dev process)
I support shortening the release cycle (to maybe 4 weeks)
How many bugs are backed out in Beta? It's surprisingly many, which suggests that 12 weeks is quite short.
Having two channels (Aurora and Beta) between dev and release is useful because it widens the user population as the release stabilizes
I'm not sure I agree on this. I mean, are there people running Beta that would run Release if Beta wasn't available? I'd think those people would be on Aurora.
Early adopters that install Aurora or Beta are not representative of the "Joe User" population, who probably suffer from malware, anti-virus software, and older hardware
I'm afraid you're right and this makes chem-spills unavoidable, though this particularly one is sad as it looked entirely avoidable.