Template talk:Latest preview software release/Firefox

Version Numbering

Schapel, Lets not get confused over product naming and version numbering. This is version 2.0b2, and the old version was 2.0b1. The product name is Beta 2. Your argument is countered by the fact that http://www.mozilla.org/projects/bonecho/releases/2.0b1.html also calls itself Beta 1, however all file names (downloads), folder names (ftp), version names (in the about dialog), etc. are known as 2.0b1. It is the same with version 2.0b2. Thanks T. Moitie ^[talk] 16:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Also note in the image: Image:Firefox2.0b2.png in the about box it refers to itself as Version 2.0b2 Thanks, T. Moitie ^[talk] 16:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A file name is just a file name. A folder name is just a folder name. A user agent string is just a user agent string. However, what Mozilla reports as the version of this release is 2.0 Beta 2. -- Schapel 00:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In the about box of any Beta 2 installation it will say "version 2.0b2". Its not a question that they've changed it for this version. They always refer to other versions with their version names. [1] [2] [3] [4]. But those aren't version numbering. They are referring to the name of the version, not the version number itself, which is what we want to report in the release box, if not just for accuracy, but for style as well. Having wordage there looked to me slightly odd (if you don't mind me saying). Hope this clears it up, T. Moitie ^[talk] 01:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Major and minor

Don't we already distinguish between betas and developer previews by the alpha/beta terminology? If the point is to discourage users from downloading the alpha, why label it as major? I would think that would encourage users to download it, as it has a more positive connotation than minor. In any case, after 3.6.4 is released the page will go back to listing only one preview release, and the point will be moot. -- Schapel (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going to re-write what I wrote on Aavindraa's talk page:

As per WP:NOTGUIDE the article is an encyclopedic reference, not a manual. It's not here to help people find what to download, it just needs to show the facts.

And the facts are that there are 2 preview releases 3.6.4 beta (built 3) and 3.7 Alpha 4, these 2 should be listed, what might become of this releases (if one will become a minor update or the other a major new version) doesn't matter in Wikipedia as per WP:BALL, when the next release comes out and its called 4.0 Alpha or something then the page can be updated.

Also using a link to the release notes is the simplest way to show a new version is available, when an editor updates the template he/she simply includes the link to the release notes and others can easily verify that the edit is correct. --Chris Ssk _talk 15:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Firefox 3.6.4 is a minor update, and Firefox 3.7 (aka Firefox 4.0) is a major update, so those are the facts. They will likely be ineffective for their stated purpose, but in any case I agree that Wikipedia should not be prescriptive. Wikipedia should be descriptive instead. I also agree that the link to release notes are necessary because many editors "jump the gun" and announce releases that haven't happened -- sometimes days or weeks in advance. -- Schapel (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well its a major-minor update, minor updates are usually fixes and don't get betas like this, I think listing minor - major like this is unessesary, but as you said the issue will soon fix itself when 3.6.4 final comes out --Chris Ssk _talk 14:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Source for releases

As discussed many times in the past, the mere presence of a file on a file server does not indicate a release has occurred. I will change back to linking to release notes for verification of release names and dates. -- Schapel (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the conversation that took place on my talk page? Please link to these "many" discussions. Avindra talk / contribs 15:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No. I don't know where they are, but I remember many discussions with others about this issue years ago about the Firefox release version templates. It's why we now insist on a link to release notes. -- Schapel (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the history of this page, it seems every discussion had about FF's versioning is visible, and I can't find what you're talking about. Was it on your talk page? Can we have other users voice their opinion on this? For those who don't know what's being discussed, please see this discussion on my talk page.Avindra talk / contribs 15:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I found some discussion at [[5]], but I remember many heated exchanges, including one where someone claimed I was completely confused and couldn't understand the difference between a release and release notes. The bottom line is that unless you can produce release notes, there was almost certainly not a release. A corollary to this is that the name that we should use to identify a release is the name given in the release notes, not an identifier such as a filename or user agent string; this is what is discussed above in the Version Numbering section. -- Schapel (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this page was just fine up to last week when all this editing and addding notes etc started. All those notes (explaining what is major or minor etc...) are not relevant to this template, I'm changing the page to how it was with a simple note asking editors to provite a link to the release notes of the version they are adding --Chris Ssk _talk 17:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

All of the edits I made are "relevant" in explaining why we include two versions, and how to properly find the latest version in each case. I hope you understand this. Avindra talk / contribs 02:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, and its not relevant to this template, as for what should be used as release notes, as Schapel said above you should be able produce release notes, otherwise it could be anything, the site admin could mistakenly update the site, a file could be mistakenly given the wrong name, be put in the wrong folder in the ftp server etc... --Chris Ssk _talk 08:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It could be a release that is being prepared but isn't finished yet. Until there's some sort of announcement, it's speculation. Until it's officially announced that the released is out, it shouldn't be listed here. Mozilla release engineers have admonished those who have jumped the gun in the past. -- Schapel (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The all-beta page is just as reliable as the release notes page (which is a click away from the all beta page). If you clicked on it, it is NOT a directory listing of releases which can be accidentally botched by a developer. It is considered the standard announcement page for the next beta release for Firefox. There is no page more perfect than this to use for the beta page. The difference is that you won't have to constantly change the URL. With my edits, all you have to do now is change the version number, and the documentation I provided clearly shows exactly where to find those new versions. Also, the documentation is only available on this page, in order to be helpful for the people who will be editing. This will help prevent the dozens of edits that occur on this page. Unless you provide proper rationale, please do not revert this edit. Avindra talk / contribs 17:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think asking the person who updates the version to also update the reference makes it easier to see when an edit is valid or invalid, and also results in fewer invalid edits. We can try your version of the page, but if it does not result in fewer invalid edits, we should revert to the simpler version. I think the kind of people who make those edits are not likely to bother reading through and attempting to comprehend three paragraphs of prose. -- Schapel (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I still believe the other way is better so once again I'm changing it back.

• It is important to distinguish the difference between a beta and a developer preview. Minor updates focus on fixing bugs and implementing minor features, or one or two major features. Major releases make radical changes to the GUI, the overall speed and feel of Firefox, and can include many new features. Generally speaking, minor updates should be more stable than the major developer previews. Major and minor betas are marketed towards different users (innovators vs. early adopters).

A fairly accurate description but totally irrelevant to this is a template. Its function as shown in its documentation is "Format release version and date for display in infoboxes and wikitables." not explain what alpha beta, preview is, there is an article for than

• • If the next major update is available as a beta, please only include that. If both a minor update as a beta and a major version is available as a developer preview, please include both versions and distinguish the difference by marking one Minor, and one Major.

So 3.6.4 beta shouldn't be listed if 3.7 beta comes out? I totally disagree with this, as long as a preview release of a version newer than the stable release is available it should be listed.

All the notes in this template are not here to be read by users (ie. someone trying to find out what to download) they are guidelines for for the editors, so lets keep it simple, if you update the template please provide a link to the release note. --Chris Ssk _talk 21:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've left out "Minor" and "Major" as a compromise. Don't tell me now that you don't agree my notes are helpful "guidelines for the editors". I've compromised some of the notes as well, if you look back at it. Avindra talk / contribs 08:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

These notes are unnecessary. It suffices to simply ask for a link to release notes to serve as verification that the release was in fact released. In June, there will no longer be two different preview releases, so the notes about distinguishing the releases will be moot. If the point of these notes is to make it so the page is updated less often, they've been a miserable failure because this page has been updated far more frequently since they were added. Let's keep it simple, so people who come in to update the version have a chance to see the request for a link to release notes. As it is right now, they won't see it for all the verbose notes on the page. -- Schapel (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Miserable failure? Not very scientific of you, seeing as you haven't given my edits a chance for more than 24 hours. Avindra talk / contribs 06:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been touching your edits, especially the "notes" under discussion. In the past two weeks, all I've done is revert the usual "jumping the gun" edits to the versions, and I updated the version to the latest release once, and removed some extra text from the alpha release version once. None of these edits changed the "notes" one bit. I do notice that the more text is added to the page, the more often people want to change it for whatever reason. I conclude that we should add as little as possible if we would like to minimize edits to the page. -- Schapel (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You are not adding "guidelines for the editors" you are adding a guide for the users so they can download.

• direct link to the download, whats the use of it as "guidelines for the editors" in this template? none, its so readers can find it and download it.
• difference between a beta and a developer preview. again whats the use of it as "guidelines for the editors" in this template? none, again its so that readers can understand what version is suited for them, moreover if this was in the article it would probably be removed as original research or asked to provide reliable sources for what constitutes a minor or major update.

and again as I said before I totally disagree that 3.6.4 beta shouldn't be listed if 3.7 (4.0) beta comes out.

This is a template that only has a line or 2 visible in the article, its point is to help with frequently updated software so you dont have to edit the entire article to add a newer version, its not to be read by users on its own. So many articles use this and all they have in their "Latest preview software release" is the LPR template, because of how Mozilla works (everything is open, so nightly builds are available to download) a few editors would get confused and add a nightly as a release, so a simple guideline asking to provide a link was added to the template, I don't think anything more is needed. --Chris Ssk _talk 12:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)