Neowin.net

Nice! A change log anywhere?

http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.0b2/whatsnew/

Like always there's someone which don't know what are talking about.

Lee, there's a basic thing you need to know so you can see if it's a final version (including Final Betas (lol)), just look at the Download link: http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/

Now there's two things you need to know:

Final versions go to Releases directory: http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/

Alpha, Beta, RC versions go to nightly directory: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/

Anyway, it's ALWAYS the same, the software is released before they announce it (like updating the site pages), and most of you know that.

Yes, and the person who doesn't know what they are talking about is YOU.

Getting the files onto the load-balanced ftp mirror at releases.mozilla.org is just ONE step of the release cycle.

It is NOT the final step.

Just because files have been put up there, does NOT mean that a firefox build is officially released.

A build is officially released when the firefox website is updated and the auto updating system has been turned on.

Up until that point, it is PERFECTLY POSSIBLE that a last-minute nasty could be found, and the builds could be removed from releases.mozilla.org

Just because Mozilla do things more openly does not grant you the right to announce when their product is released. Their product is released when THEY say it is released. And they will say it is released when all their tick boxes are ticked and it is _really_ ready to be released. Do you honestly think Mozilla would put a build up on their ftp, and then not announce it or something, like they're ashamed of the product they built?

edit: To include two blog posts about this kind of thing. OK it was with respect to the Firefox 2 release, but it covers the same ground (people announcing a release of Firefox before Mozilla have)

• The Anti-release by preed
• It's not like we're ashamed by beltzner

Oh right, off course i don't know what i'm talking about, did you read the post bellow your? Didn't think so.

I don't need links, don't need any Wiki, i know what i'm saying.

http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox3/Beta2ReleaseChecklist <---------------------------- Tip for you.

use that link a read carefully.

Oh, and in less than one hour they're already two steps above, now let me think, they will take a week to make all what's left.

And off course i don't know what i'm talking about, and won't be you which will explain me something new.

Anyway, from what i can read in Mozilla World it's only final when it's announced in the official website, right?

Yes, I have read this wiki link. Have you? Perhaps you could read for us in a loud voice what step 16 is? And then remind us what step we are on.


I know very well how the release steps for this build are going, since I'm on irc.mozilla.org, in the release room, where it's all happening live. Perhaps you could come to irc.mozilla.org #firefox and we could discuss the release mechanism, and whether, in the eyes of Mozilla, Firefox 3.0 Beta 2 is released or not.

Just because files have been put up there, does NOT mean that a firefox build is officially released.

Up until that point, it is PERFECTLY POSSIBLE that a last-minute nasty could be found, and the builds could be removed from releases.mozilla.org

• The Anti-release by preed
• It's not like we're ashamed by beltzner

Oh i don't doubt you know, so can you tell us EXACTLY when it will be officially announced?

Thank you.

Edit: One more step done.

Edit: I can't stop laughing with this:



Maybe was Santa which put the files in there! Carefully, it can be a next-gen virus!

Haven't you forget ftp.mozilla.org ? or that it's not a official mirror?

No. I've been helping out with the firefox project for many years. I don't care when beta 2 is released, since I use nightly and hourly builds, and there's already been many landings since the tree reopened after the beta 2 build cycle.

I simply object to people like you mis-informing others on message boards about stuff I know to be wrong. I'm not suggesting you might be wrong. I'm not saying it is my opinion you are wrong. You ARE wrong. Period.

I know very well how the release steps for this build are going, since I'm on irc.mozilla.org, in the release room, where it's all happening live.

Firefox is NOT released as soon as it hits releases.mozilla.org - no matter what you think. Come to IRC and ask Mozilla employees... Read the two blog links that I linked to previously..

And no, ftp.mozilla.org is not a mirror.

So what is this link: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/release...%20Beta%202.exe

Isn't a mirror? I think i need glasses.

Normally, I'd take the time to write up a more in-depth explanation, but since my schedule is... uh... "hectic" right now, I'll just say this:

1. No, we have. Not. Released. Firefox. 2. Yet.
2. When people link to bits directly on a random FTP mirror, they're doing a number of people harm including, quite possibly, themselves:
* Digg and Reddit posts linking to direct FTP mirrors could be costing the operators of those mirrors hundreds to thousands of dollars in bandwidth bills, or may cause them to crash by linking directly to them. This could cause them to "un-volunteer" their services as a mirror, making it even harder to obtain Firefox on release days.
* People posting direct link to FTP mirrors don't know if that mirror is a member of the Mozilla FTP Mirror Farm, or some random, unverified mirror. We work hard to verify that the mirrors in our farm are serving the same bits we released, and we cannot make the same claim about other mirrors that aren't part of our farm. When using direct FTP links to random mirrors, users run the risk of downloading bits that have not been checked to ensure they do not contain a virus or trojan.
* "That's ok," you say: "I link directly to ftp.mozilla.org!" That can be even worse! Killing the project's FTP server does not help anyone, least of all people trying to obtain Firefox builds. And it makes for a grumpy IT group. And nobody wants grumpy IT groups. Especially a day before a release.
3. Linking directly to builds hinders our ability to remove/retract bits that we may have to remove for some reason. While this may not seem like a big deal, it becomes a problem when supporting users, one of our most important values. If, let's say, we pull a locale, due to a stop-ship bug—and yes, this is not a hypothetical—then users who've (pre-)downloaded that build will not receive valuable security updates for those builds. The counterargument to this is "Well, you should provide updates for everything you've ever offered on your FTP site." If we did this, we'd be spending valuable (and über-constrained) Build Team and QA resources generating updates and testing them for builds that weren't the final bits, and were never "released" as such.
4. Posting links before we release may point people to an incomplete FTP areas or mirrors. I haven't finished posting the source tarball, for instance. Will it happen before we release? Yes. Will there be unnecessary confusion from the open source community, wondering where this deliverable is? If you post links to an FTP site with the builds, yes.
5. Most articles have an unerring ability to link to the wrong thing. Slashdot's front page, for instance, currently links to the Windows British English build. I cringe at the thought of the community having to waste time while we're finishing things up with IRC, blog, and Bugzilla chatter asking "I got my build from Slashdot; why did you guys spell behaviour wrong?" And where are Slashdotters wanting uhh... you know... Linux builds supposed to get them? It's unclear from the article that directly links to an .exe for one [correct for one country, but mostly-wrong for everyone else] locale.
6. User experience can be degraded, leaving a bad taste in people's mouth: Firefox 2 has a number of components that use live content on websites. The whole community has been doing a lot of work to refresh, update, and translate this content, and parts of it are still coming together for the release. When you download a build, there could be various content, including certain parts of help, that are not yet ready. When you tell your friends to go download Firefox 2 before we announce it's ready, you're subjecting them to a degraded user experience, which could push them to go back to... "other browsers."

So why, might you ask, does it annoy us when sites try to connect our fans with the latest release? Well, preed’s done a fantastic job of explaining how directly linking to the FTP site hurts Mozilla. In addition to that, I might add that I find the implication of a lot of these stories to be insulting. We’re damned proud of Firefox 2, and happy to shout about it to the rafters when we’re done. We’ve helped organize parties to celebrate its release, and for the past two weeks, Chris Beard, Mike Schroepfer, Mike Connor and I have been talking to the press about the impending release so that the whole world knows just how proud of Firefox 2, our community and this whole darned thing called “Mozilla.” The point is, as preed said: we’re not done yet!

When we’re done, trust me, you’ll know. We’ll tell you. We’ve gone out of our way to design, plan and develop Firefox 2 in full view of the public. Why would we keep secrets from you now?

Update: some people in the comments have pointed out that it’s stupid to expect people not to download something after putting it on a public server, or that there should be a way to have the mirrors password protect things. To this I have a couple of responses:

1.

I never said we didn’t want people downloading things that are on our public mirrors. That’s why they’re public mirrors. We’ve always, and will always, allow people to download nightly builds, hourly builds, historical builds, source tarballs, etc. Nobody’s upset about that, although we obviously would prefer that people use releases.mozilla.org which is a round-robin service of our mirrors instead of ftp.mozilla.org which is a single box.
2.

Of course we could figure out a way to make it so that people don’t see the /releases directory until we’re ready for public consumption. But that raises the barrier to entry for our testing volunteers who need to get at the release candidates to do QA. Mozilla QA days would become more complex, and how long do you really think it would take for the passwords to leak out? Or for someone to point to the closest nightly build? All locking things down would do is encourage people to game the system some other way.
3.

What I said I was upset about was news organizations “announcing” our releases for us when we haven’t released. We are very public about our release process, our release dates and our release estimates. We keep absolutely no secrets in this regard. We are happy to put people on our notify list so that they can publish their stories the minute we actually release, but we (the project drivers) are the only ones who can say when Mozilla has released something, and we do that when we think the quality of the whole user experience and product is good enough. Part of the steps along there involve the builds to be available to the public as unreleased products. What I’m frustrated with is people pointing at those and saying “ooh! ooh! look! it’s the release!” and the implicit notion that we’re not proud enough of what we’re doing to tell people about it.

It's not released until Mozilla says its released. PERIOD.

Can't neowin just wait until it is officially announced, it is annoying having to go wow its out, then wait, actually no its not.

Do you wait when new versions of Firefox 2 are announced? And why you need to wait one day or more to see the newest version in the automatic updater, when that is already available on the server to download?

Anyway, the Official site of the Products are always the last to announce the product, and i don't see what is the problem when the link is in the OFFICIAL and Final folder.

Strangely enough, EL1TE, there is this thing called common courtesy, and you appear to lack it.

Is it so hard to read or listen to Mozilla's requests?

I don't think anyone needs to argue about it.

It's in the "/releases/" folder, so that means it's out.

because HUNDREDS of people can see who's right!

Aye, hundreds - if not thousands can see who's right (hint: it isn't you!

Over 300 individual memory leaks have been plugged, and a new XPCOM cycle collector completely eliminates many more. Developers are continuing to work on optimizing memory use (by releasing cached objects more quickly) and reducing fragmentation. Beta 2 includes over 30 more memory leak fixes, and 11 improvements to our memory footprint.