Drivers Update

Friday March 29th, 2002

The Status Reports was updated, and included some information on what are up to, and what's coming up:

" approved checkins for over 240 bugs this last week. We've taken a few more big-ticket items and have a couple to go. drivers will be ramping down this next week and actively soliciting fixes that we need to branch and have a Release Candidate 1 sometime (hopefully) late next week. We need to get RC1 out there quickly and get feedback on all the changes we've taken since 0.9.9 and at the same time we need the release to stand up so that users will put enough hours on it to give meaningful feedback. Please help us to get the builds into good shape over this next week with particular attention to recent regressions and topcrash+ bugs."

#17 Is calling it RC1 a big and unnecessary PR risk?

by ralphmellor

Saturday March 30th, 2002 8:15 AM

You are replying to this message

> Why do you say that it is clear that RC1 will not be > nearly good enough to be renamed as the unqualified 1.0?

On reflection, that's unwarranted.

Let me see if I can nail down my concern without overstating anything. It would be OK if "Mozilla 1.0 Release Candidate 1" had a minor regression or two, but it could well be rather bad news press-wise if it includes any significant regressions. My guess would be that the press would lambast Mozilla for having such poor QA practices that they A) have not bothered with the conventional alpha/beta sequence, and B) have, consequently, released a buggy product. *I* know that this is wrong, that Mozilla has had milestones instead, and that it will be adopting conventional alpha/beta nomenclature post 1.0, but that's beside the point. So, I'd like to see a "Mozilla 1.0 Beta" even if it's followed just a few days later by a "Mozilla 1.0 Release Candidate 1", or even more simply by an after-the-fact dual labelling of the Beta as RC1.

-- ralph