Mozilla To Remove User-Facing Firefox Version Numbers

[Riz360]

Chrome has been the worst thing to happen to firefox.

The interface, the task manager, the version numbers. They were good ideas when Chrome did it.

Do something new Mozilla! Innovate, compete!

[Kirkburn]

ViperAFK, thanks for bringing some sanity to the thread. You've explained it pretty clearly :)

[Growled Member]

This seems a bit silly to me. Most end users don't even know what version number they are using anyway. It's mostly us power users that pay attention to that. It's not like the version number is going away.

[FMH]

I hope the builder number X comes soon. ;) It is siad to have many unknown great features.

[Jebadiah]

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? With this kind of development model version numbers do not matter, its simply timed-based releases. Just the fact that they want to move in the direction of chrome, basically removing user-facing version numbers shows its NOT about "I have a higher version number than you". It never has been, people like you try and make it seem that way for some unfathomable reason. You are imagining your own controversy here and its absurd.

Why would they try and catch up to chrome's version numbers? Who cares about chrome's version numbers? They don't show it on any of the main pages on chrome's website, and only on the about box in the browser. Your average joe will probably never notice chrome's version numbers. Tell me, how does this sound like a version number game to you? The main reason mozilla decided to simply up the number by 1 every release is that they want to ditch major/minor completely, for the sake of simplicity. They don't want to debate what constitutes a "major" or "minor" release. Its time based, new version every six weeks, number goes up every six weeks. The new model is about faster, more consistent releases, and getting features distributed to the end users in a more timely manner. It is NOT about number wars.

Would it really make a difference to you if firefox 6 was 4.5? it would still be the same release, different number. Stop making a mountain out of a molehill. Version numbers simply are not important in a purely time based release schedule. This is like saying ubuntu is trying to beat windows' version number because it increases rapidly.

Anyway, I doubt the "about:support" window will be going anywhere.

Version numbers may not matter to you, but when it is *advertised* to a layman, it means a lot. It is intuitive to anybody, based on past experiences from experiencing advertisements, that a version 10 is *better* than 9. Turning a switch up means ON; down means OFF. Bottom-top means increasing; top-bottom means decreasing.

Increasing the major version number gives a layman the illusion that there are fast updates, especially when you are trained to see decimal point increases in version numbers. Taking the version numbers out of the user's eye, that is advertising the version number, is a step in the right direction. **** off Google.

[ViperAFK]

Version numbers may not matter to you, but when it is *advertised* to a layman, it means a lot. It is intuitive to anybody, based on past experiences from experiencing advertisements, that a version 10 is *better* than 9. Turning a switch up means ON; down means OFF. Bottom-top means increasing; top-bottom means decreasing.

Increasing the major version number gives a layman the illusion that there are fast updates, especially when you are trained to see decimal point increases in version numbers. Taking the version numbers out of the user's eye, that is advertising the version number, is a step in the right direction. **** off Google.

Mozilla is changing things to *not* advertise version numbers to users, so I don't see why this is a big deal.

[BetaAddict]

Simply increasing it by one is cleaner. The channels would be more confusing that way, there wouldn't be as clear as a differentiator between the version numbers of stable/beta/aurora/nightly. Chrome is doing the same thing, and I don't see this absurd bitching in every chrome thread...

Not that I have any problem with the current numbering scheme or development schedule as I have made clear in other threads, but here is an alternative release number that would likely appease those who claim Mozilla is falsely and inappropriately boosting their version numbers despite releasing only minor features. Some companies have used and still do use the year+letter version format (e.g. 2011a, 2011b, etc) to indicate multiple releases. For example, MatLab uses this format as they make two update releases per year. In Mozilla's case, they would be making about four per year. This would take attention away from seemingly arbitrary numbers and allow for truly adopting the time-based release method in it's true essence for both developmental and marketing purposes.

[Jebadiah]

Mozilla is changing things to *not* advertise version numbers to users, so I don't see why this is a big deal.

I do not disagree with the point you are trying to make.

[M_Lyons10]

This seems silly. Particularly when you need to report a bug or whatever. What about a Bank site that wants to say that it works with Firefox 7 and later for instance? I think users really need to know what they're running or be able to look it up for compatibility purposes, etc...

[ViperAFK]

This seems silly. Particularly when you need to report a bug or whatever. What about a Bank site that wants to say that it works with Firefox 7 and later for instance? I think users really need to know what they're running or be able to look it up for compatibility purposes, etc...

about:support will stay.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Simply increasing it by one is cleaner. The channels would be more confusing that way, there wouldn't be as clear as a differentiator between the version numbers of stable/beta/aurora/nightly. Chrome is doing the same thing, and I don't see this absurd bitching in every chrome thread...

The reason they went with increasing the major version, is because it's actually easier for their release work flow (As said by people who manage the releases). If it was easier to bump the minor version we'd be on 4.2 now, etc.

My main problem with using version numbers with a time based release schedule is that it makes them pointless. I personally prefer the YYYY.MM notation, or just dropping them altogether (Which is what might be happening)