There are many people who like the suite and especially like the features they would miss in FB/TB.

The 1.x series won't "stop" as such - what is planned is that Firebird etc will replace the App suite as the front-end for the 1.x series.

Remember that the majority of code isn't the front-end you see, but the back-end stuff, and that is common to the Mozilla suite, Firebird, Thunderbird (and also Camino, Galeon, Epiphany etc etc). 1.x is only a "dead-end" in terms of the front end, and the front end for 1.5 hasn't really changed since 1.4 (it's also possible that the app suite UI could be continue to be maintained even after it's been replaced by Firebird for the primary focus of the builds)

It's only confusing because you are thinking about these things as separate applications. When this says "Mozilla branches", it means the whole code tree, not just the app suite part - Firebird and Thunderbird code is also part of this, and the plan is for Firebird 0.7 and Thunderbird 0.3 to also be released from this branch as well.

Having said all that, given that we are supposed to be focusing more on end-users, it would be good if the Mozilla folks established some firmer plans and updated the roadmap so that the end-users that are following the development process understand what is going on (not to mention the developers having some clue about the future)

I'd thought it was made clear by the roadmap and subsequent discussion here.

Seamonkey won't be replaced until Firebird is mature enough to replace it. Until Firebird is mature enough, development will continue in both. Work done on Seamonkey is often picked up by Firebird, so Seamonkey development translates into Firebird development anyway. The roadmap, and discussion here, originally called for a *gradual* move to Firebird during the 1.5 - 1.7 cycles. There were also no absolute statements as to deadlines or guarantees as there are so many variables that have to be dealt with at each step.

This was discussed and actually would be a fairly reasonable "marketing" decision, as it would indicate to end users that Mozilla has had a major change.

One of the big arguements against it is that the overall architecture has been slowly evolving and the major APIs (for embedding and such) have remained stable. The people/organizations developing from the 1.x line could then be safely assume it maintains most of its compatability across future releases.

Aye, and therein lies the rub. Make a "marketing" statement to draw attention of the press and peoples or make version numbers derive mostly from developers' needs?