Recommended Posts

No. Unless a showstopper forces a respin (which is extremely unlikely at this point), the June 24 build (RC3) is the Final build. As I've said before in another thread, Mozilla does true candidates, which is why none of the RCs contain "RC" in the version info.

The tree has long been closed, and all checkins since June 24 have been things that are not a part of the build. The nightlies are automatically spun every day, regardless of whether there has been any changes to the code, and they will continue to be automatically generated every day after 3.5 is released (at which point, they will be 3.5.1pre).

Edited by code.kliu.org
As I've said before in another thread, Mozilla does true candidates, which is why none of the RCs contain "RC" in the version info.
Which is interesting in the world of software development. I was ridiculed on another thread for pointing out that Mozilla's release candidates are truly candidates for release, unlike other software, like say Windows, where release candidates have absolutely zero chance of being final.
Which is interesting in the world of software development. I was ridiculed on another thread for pointing out that Mozilla's release candidates are truly candidates for release, unlike other software, like say Windows, where release candidates have absolutely zero chance of being final.

It's a bit like comparing apples and oranges though isn't it? Although I see your point.

Which is interesting in the world of software development. I was ridiculed on another thread for pointing out that Mozilla's release candidates are truly candidates for release, unlike other software, like say Windows, where release candidates have absolutely zero chance of being final.

You're right. With Windows, they generally pre-announce how many release candidates there will be. That, by the very definition of the term 'release candidate', means that they are not release candidates at all. How can RC1 be called a Candidate for Release if you've already announced there will be an RC2 long before RC1 came out. It's stupid really.

Microsoft should continue with the Beta tag until they are at the quality bar where the product could be released. At that point you compile a build and called it RC1. Assuming no show stoppers are found by the public in RC1, you use that very same build and rename it to Final. If bugs are found, you fix them and release a second RC. It's a no-brainer really.

Mozilla seems to do it this way which is a welcome change from Microsoft's backwards way of doing it.

Thanks, but I'll wait for the final version. :)

Which, from the looks of it, will almost certainly be bit-for-bit identical to RC3. ;)

For Mozilla, the process can vary. As people would recall, the Firefox 1.0 RCs were really glorified betas and were not true candidates. The current project drivers very much like the idea of a true RC (in part because it makes it easier for QA to sign off on things: if you spin a new build after an RC, you need to test that build anyway to make sure something weird didn't happen during build or packaging, etc.).

As for Microsoft, they have intentionally "grade-inflated", and they have a very good reason to do so. Raymond Chen wrote an article explaining this (sorry, don't have the link handy) that basically boiled down to this: Microsoft had a problem where people didn't pay attention to the betas, and there was one incident, back when Microsoft's RCs were true candidates that they got an important piece of feedback only after the RC came out, at which point it was too late in the process to make those sorts of changes without incurring a lot of extra cost. So they had to grade-inflate, and what used to be late betas are now RCs, and what used to be RCs are now escrow builds. The idea is that more people are more willing to test and give feedback if it says "RC" than if it says "beta". Though I think that with the current overuse of the "beta" label (e.g., Google's notorious perpetual betas), the need for this grade inflation has decreased somewhat in recent years.

You're right. With Windows, they generally pre-announce how many release candidates there will be. That, by the very definition of the term 'release candidate', means that they are not release candidates at all. How can RC1 be called a Candidate for Release if you've already announced there will be an RC2 long before RC1 came out. It's stupid really.

Microsoft should continue with the Beta tag until they are at the quality bar where the product could be released. At that point you compile a build and called it RC1. Assuming no show stoppers are found by the public in RC1, you use that very same build and rename it to Final. If bugs are found, you fix them and release a second RC. It's a no-brainer really.

Mozilla seems to do it this way which is a welcome change from Microsoft's backwards way of doing it.

I agree. I never understood Microsoft's way of doing this. It really doesn't make any sense at all.

Perhaps. It's only a day away, anyway. I think I can hold out with version 3.0.11 until the version 3.5 is released. :p

Yeah, I really can't wait. I still think that the Tab Previews they chose would have been better served if they used Showcase Tab as a base instead of the add in they chose, but that's my only gripe, and is admittedly miner. Showcase though is an AMAZING add in though.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      580
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!