Wine Gecko versioning
Hi all, Since Wine Gecko 1.9 branching, the tip should bump to 1.10, but I think it's time to clean up the situation a bit. Such things usually don't bring much attention, but it should be decided in public. Right now we have three versioning schemes involved in Wine Gecko: - Wine version that applies to Gecko - Gecko version (since Firefox 5 and Mozilla's rapid releases it's the same as Firefox version) - Wine Gecko version, which is just a growing number, not really connected with any of above. These numbers currently have no meaning other that being different for different Wine Gecko releases. The idea is that Wine Gecko version could be just something based on other versions, that are more informative. It's not really possible to use Wine version, because the first version of Wine that will use new Gecko is not ultimately when Wine Gecko branches. Also multiple Wine versions use the same Wine Gecko. That leaves us with Gecko (Firefox version). We don't release on every Firefox release (every 6 weeks), so if we just used Firefox version, that would look strange (like Wine Gecko 18 followed by Wine Gecko 20). That can be mitigated by using it as a minor version. So the next few release would look like: - 1.9 (that's already in beta and will be the last release using old scheme) - 2.20 (assuming the next update will be 3 months from 1.9, which means Firefox 20) - 2.22 (assuming another 3 moths for the update). Any suggestions/comments welcomed. Cheers, Jacek
Am 27.11.2012 13:32, schrieb Jacek Caban:
The idea is that Wine Gecko version could be just something based on other versions, that are more informative. It's not really possible to use Wine version, because the first version of Wine that will use new Gecko is not ultimately when Wine Gecko branches. Also multiple Wine versions use the same Wine Gecko. That leaves us with Gecko (Firefox version). We don't release on every Firefox release (every 6 weeks), so if we just used Firefox version, that would look strange (like Wine Gecko 18 followed by Wine Gecko 20). That can be mitigated by using it as a minor version. So the next few release would look like: - 1.9 (that's already in beta and will be the last release using old scheme) - 2.20 (assuming the next update will be 3 months from 1.9, which means Firefox 20) - 2.22 (assuming another 3 moths for the update).
I like the idea, but why move to 2.x? 1.20, 1.22 and so on would perfectly fit. And if the gap between 1.9 and 1.20 is confusing someone, then he really has issues. I'm also fine with 2.x, i just think a new version scheme shouldn't necessarily lead to a version increment. -- Best Regards, André Hentschel
On 11/27/12 14:53, André Hentschel wrote:
Am 27.11.2012 13:32, schrieb Jacek Caban:
The idea is that Wine Gecko version could be just something based on other versions, that are more informative. It's not really possible to use Wine version, because the first version of Wine that will use new Gecko is not ultimately when Wine Gecko branches. Also multiple Wine versions use the same Wine Gecko. That leaves us with Gecko (Firefox version). We don't release on every Firefox release (every 6 weeks), so if we just used Firefox version, that would look strange (like Wine Gecko 18 followed by Wine Gecko 20). That can be mitigated by using it as a minor version. So the next few release would look like: - 1.9 (that's already in beta and will be the last release using old scheme) - 2.20 (assuming the next update will be 3 months from 1.9, which means Firefox 20) - 2.22 (assuming another 3 moths for the update). I like the idea, but why move to 2.x? 1.20, 1.22 and so on would perfectly fit. And if the gap between 1.9 and 1.20 is confusing someone, then he really has issues. I'm also fine with 2.x, i just think a new version scheme shouldn't necessarily lead to a version increment.
You're right, 1.20 would fit, but I also don't see anything wrong with version increment. That said, I don't have strong preference here. Thanks, Jacek
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:32:02 +0100 Jacek Caban <jacek(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
The idea is that Wine Gecko version could be just something based on other versions, that are more informative.
Users don't care what version of Firefox the latest gecko is based on; most don't even realize it is based on Firefox. What does often confuse users, and which your suggested scheme doesn't address, is keeping track of which version of Wine uses which version of wine-gecko. -- Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio(a)earthlink.net>
On 11/27/2012 17:26, Rosanne DiMesio wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:32:02 +0100 Jacek Caban <jacek(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
The idea is that Wine Gecko version could be just something based on other versions, that are more informative.
Users don't care what version of Firefox the latest gecko is based on; most don't even realize it is based on Firefox. What does often confuse users, and which your suggested scheme doesn't address, is keeping track of which version of Wine uses which version of wine-gecko. It's described here http://wiki.winehq.org/Gecko. I guess failure message loading gecko (in load_gecko()) could be improved adding GECKO_VERSION to it so user clearly see what version he needs to have if it's somehow not downloaded already.
On 11/27/12 16:33, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
On 11/27/2012 17:26, Rosanne DiMesio wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:32:02 +0100 Jacek Caban <jacek(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
The idea is that Wine Gecko version could be just something based on other versions, that are more informative.
Users don't care what version of Firefox the latest gecko is based on; most don't even realize it is based on Firefox. What does often confuse users, and which your suggested scheme doesn't address, is keeping track of which version of Wine uses which version of wine-gecko.
As Nikolay said, we have a Wiki page for that. It's not something we can improve by different Gecko versioning.
It's described here http://wiki.winehq.org/Gecko. I guess failure message loading gecko (in load_gecko()) could be improved adding GECKO_VERSION to it so user clearly see what version he needs to have if it's somehow not downloaded already.
Sounds like a good idea, although we'll probably want to fix it by including version information in Gecko downloader. Thanks, Jacek
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:33:20 +0300 Nikolay Sivov <bunglehead(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It's described here http://wiki.winehq.org/Gecko. I guess failure message loading gecko (in load_gecko()) could be improved adding GECKO_VERSION to it so user clearly see what version he needs to have if it's somehow not downloaded already.
I know where the information is; in fact, I had to correct that page myself once because the information originally posted was wrong. Adding the version needed to the error message would definitely be helpful. -- Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio(a)earthlink.net>
participants (4)
-
André Hentschel -
Jacek Caban -
Nikolay Sivov -
Rosanne DiMesio