MozillaZine

Mozilla 0.9.6 Released

Tuesday November 20th, 2001

mozilla.org today made available for download binaries of the Mozilla 0.9.6 Milestone. The builds are available on the releases page, or you can get them directly from the ftp site.

New to this milestone are fixes for about 1,600 bugs including support for site icons in both the url bar and tabs (expect IE's favicons to show up in 0.9.7), displaying both Windows Bitmap (.bmp) and Windows Icon (.ico) files inline on all platforms, a new print preview implementation, Page Setup improvements on the Macintosh, Mail message 'labels' (Correction: This feature is not fully complete, only parts of the backed have landed.), and a new select and search context menu item, among others. If you are interested in more information on any of these new features, be sure to check out the release notes.

Also, mozilla.org last week released the source code on which Netscape 6.2 was based.


#80 Re: defect curve

by bcwright <bcwright@ix.netcom.com>

Wednesday November 21st, 2001 8:02 PM

You are replying to this message

You already can select just blocker or critical bugs in bugzilla.

However you've hit the nail on the head when you say that severity level assignments can be very subjective, and that things like tracking "bugs" [sic], documentation "bugs" [sic], and minor enhancement "bugs" [sic] can't be meaningfully equated in importance with the "Mozilla destroys my system" bugs. Add to that the fact that in any large software project, you can often organize a class of problems either as one big "bug" or as a separate one for each instance. Is this one "bug" or a lot of them? Are the underlying problem(s) any worse if you organize the tracking tool as separate "bugs"? Stylistically some bug reporters may choose one method or the other; it's very difficult to impose absolute uniformity. Now add in all of the duplicate reports of the same bugs which may take a quite a while for QA and/or the developers to determine are actually the same bug, and that the number of reported issues will probably become greater as more people use the software (many of which will be duplicates or trivial enhancement requests or simple errors on the part of the users) ... it can be a difficult subject.

As someone said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

... which doesn't mean that the statistics are necessarily meaningless, but it does mean that focussing too strongly on the raw counts can be treacherous. You really need to have a fairly intimate familiarity with what's in the database and how likely or reproduceable or severe each item is (apart from the claims of the report, which may be inaccurate), and because Mozilla is so large I doubt that there are very many people who do outside of those who work for Netscape and other companies who are paying people to devote large amounts of time to the project. This makes it hard for outsiders to judge exactly what the situation is.

As an outsider, the thing that concerns me most about the project is not the raw bug count, but the "off in all directions at once" tendency that makes serious regressions likely. I would rather see what's already there made to work really well and reliably rather than lots more minor features. Once that's done, you can always add the features later.

--Bruce