Perhaps we can exercise restraint on doing a wholesale removal of the <10.9
code, as doing so could make uplifting to 48 and earlier more of a mess. Maybe
in a few weeks?
—
- Milan
> On May 31, 2016, at 11:16 , Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
>
> Yes.
>
> --BDS
>
> On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 6:59 P
Yes.
--BDS
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Chris Pearce wrote:
> So, given that users won't be able to install Firefox on unsupported
> versions of MacOSX, and unsupported users won't be upgraded, can we proceed
> to remove all the nsCocoaFeatures::On[Mountain]LionOrLater() calls in
> Firefox
Yes, that's fine assuming it builds on try. Official builds will be
happening on 10.7 for a while yet.
-r
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Chris Pearce wrote:
> So, given that users won't be able to install Firefox on unsupported
> versions of MacOSX, and unsupported users won't be upgraded, ca
So, given that users won't be able to install Firefox on unsupported
versions of MacOSX, and unsupported users won't be upgraded, can we proceed
to remove all the nsCocoaFeatures::On[Mountain]LionOrLater() calls in
Firefox 49 and just assume everywhere that MacOSX specific Gecko code is
running on
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:37 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> There's a screenshot in:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1255588#c8 (and #c9)
> (which is the bug that made the necessary changes for the Mac OS X
> support change in Firefox 49).
Ah, that's great. Thanks!
-r
_
On Thursday 2016-05-26 15:21 -0700, Robert Strong wrote:
> A google search on restricting the Mac version produced
> LSMinimumSystemVersion and I found the following:
>
> http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/app/macbuild/Contents/Info.plist.in#208
>
> I don't have a Mac so I can'
Existing users should not be upgraded.
The Mozilla website will use UA versions to redirect users on these
versions to a SUMO page.
If a user does end up downloading and attempting to the DMG, the minimum
version is set in the app bundle and MacOS will show a warning saying that
this application
A google search on restricting the Mac version produced
LSMinimumSystemVersion and I found the following:
http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/app/macbuild/Contents/Info.plist.in#208
I don't have a Mac so I can't check what the behavior is.
Robert
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:02 P
By design, dmg's don't do anything. There's no installer, just a
container with the executable ready to run. Nils reported in the other
thread that we just crash at launch time on 10.6, which is
unfortunate. I'd hoped Apple would show a 'not supported on this
version' dialog. We could including a w
Users won't get updated to an unsupported version and they will be notified
that their system is no longer supported. The notification includes an url
to a page for additional information.
I'm not familiar with the Mac installer but since it is just a dmg I don't
know if there is much that can be
What will the behaviour be for users on unsupported MacOSX versions?
It sounds like existing users won't get updated to a non-supported version.
What about users to try to install Firefox on an unsupported MacOS version?
Will the installer show some sort of notification/dialog box saying that th
I thought this was already asked and answered, but just to be clear.
We are not going to make any changes to the ESR schedule or make Firefox 48
any kind of long-term release. The development costs of maintaining another
branch are high, and not something we're willing to pay.
--BDS
On Tue, May
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Lawrence Mandel
wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Henrik Skupin wrote:
>
> > Mike Hommey wrote on 05/11/2016 05:06 AM:
> > >> The post states "Mozilla will end support for Firefox on OS X 10.6,
> > 10.7,
> > >> and 10.8 in August, 2016." This means that
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Henrik Skupin wrote:
> Mike Hommey wrote on 05/11/2016 05:06 AM:
> >> The post states "Mozilla will end support for Firefox on OS X 10.6,
> 10.7,
> >> and 10.8 in August, 2016." This means that we will end support with the
> >> Firefox 48 release. i.e. Firefox 48
Mike Hommey wrote on 05/11/2016 05:06 AM:
>> The post states "Mozilla will end support for Firefox on OS X 10.6, 10.7,
>> and 10.8 in August, 2016." This means that we will end support with the
>> Firefox 48 release. i.e. Firefox 48 will not support OS X 10.6-10.8.
>
> That's why the post should h
The actual content of the page is not final, but I did include that
recommendation in my request for a SUMO page. See
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1270221
--BDS
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 5/13/16 14:26, Ben Hearsum wrote:
>
>> I intend to make sure t
On 5/13/16 14:26, Ben Hearsum wrote:
I intend to make sure that Beta/Release/ESR is configured in such a
way that users get the most up to date release possible. Eg: serve
10.6-10.8 users the latest 48.0 point release, then give them a
deprecation notice.
Presumably, the deprecation notice w
I didn't know we intended to drop support in 48. I just assumed 49 from
reading the blog post and knowing that things were just landing in nightly.
At this point, though, I don't want to do uplifts and would prefer that
this ride the 49 train.
--BDS
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Ben Hearsum w
Yes. The intention was 48.0. Given that that doesn't actually buy us
anything at this point, dropping support in 49.0 is fine.
Lawrence
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Ben Hearsum wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying. It seems like the confusion came from the fact that
> we had *intended* to drop su
This was discussed in
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1269811#c7. It's
technically possible to do, but it didn't seem worthwhile on Nightly and
Aurora.
I intend to make sure that Beta/Release/ESR is configured in such a way
that users get the most up to date release possible. Eg:
Thanks for clarifying. It seems like the confusion came from the fact
that we had *intended* to drop support in 48.0, but it hadn't happened
yet. And now we don't *intend* to drop support until 49.0?
On 2016-05-13 02:55 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
Right now the code to disable 10.6 has landed
Nils, feel free to file a bug on this and cc bhearsum. I don't know how
much work this would be.
--BDS
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Nils Ohlmeier
wrote:
>
> > On May 3, 2016, at 15:18, Adam Roach wrote:
> >
> > On 5/3/16 4:59 PM, Justin Dolske wrote:
> >> On 5/3/16 12:21 PM, Gregory Szorc
Right now the code to disable 10.6 has landed only on nightly/49, and other
bits are still blocked (see bug 1270217) because our MacOS builders (not
the testers) are still running MacOS 10.7. As of this point, I expect that
Firefox 48 will still run on 10.6-10.8 and the first release to drop
suppor
> On May 10, 2016, at 19:58, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
>
> The post states "Mozilla will end support for Firefox on OS X 10.6, 10.7,
> and 10.8 in August, 2016." This means that we will end support with the
> Firefox 48 release. i.e. Firefox 48 will not support OS X 10.6-10.8.
Why do Firefox DevEd
> On May 3, 2016, at 15:18, Adam Roach wrote:
>
> On 5/3/16 4:59 PM, Justin Dolske wrote:
>> On 5/3/16 12:21 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>>
>>> * The update server has been reconfigured to not serve Nightly updates to
>>> 10.6-10.8 (bug 1269811)
>>
>> Are we going to be showing some kind of notic
On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 8:07:05 PM UTC-7, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:58:25PM -0400, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
> > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Xidorn Quan wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 06:01:12PM
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:58:25PM -0400, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Xidorn Quan wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 06:01:12PM +1000, Xidorn Quan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's Firefox 48, three versions af
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Xidorn Quan wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 06:01:12PM +1000, Xidorn Quan wrote:
> > >
> > > It's Firefox 48, three versions after ESR 45, which is roughly halfway
> > > before the next ESR.
> >
> > 48 is t
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 06:01:12PM +1000, Xidorn Quan wrote:
> >
> > It's Firefox 48, three versions after ESR 45, which is roughly halfway
> > before the next ESR.
>
> 48 is the first version that will *not* have 10.6-10.8 support.
On Mon, M
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 06:01:12PM +1000, Xidorn Quan wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Chris Peterson
> wrote:
>
> > On 5/5/16 8:23 PM, sfbay.mapfi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> The best option, from my perspective (supporting a wide array of users,
> >> OS versions, hardware), is to make
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Chris Peterson
wrote:
> On 5/5/16 8:23 PM, sfbay.mapfi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> The best option, from my perspective (supporting a wide array of users,
>> OS versions, hardware), is to make the final 10.6-10.8 version be (or
>> become) the next ESR with a startup p
On 5/5/16 8:23 PM, sfbay.mapfi...@gmail.com wrote:
The best option, from my perspective (supporting a wide array of users, OS
versions, hardware), is to make the final 10.6-10.8 version be (or become) the
next ESR with a startup page providing them with the choice and action
buttons/links.
M
On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 8:32:26 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Xidorn Quan wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:18:17PM -0500
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 8:23 PM, wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 8:32:26 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
> > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Xidorn Quan
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Lawrence Mandel
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Mike Hommey
On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 8:32:26 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Xidorn Quan wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Lawrence Mandel
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:18:17PM -
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
>> The blog post just says "August 2016". Firefox 48 is scheduled for
>> release August 2. Can you confirm that means we can start removing
>> 10.6-10.8 support in mozilla-central now, which will be Firefox 49?
>
> Yes. Confirmed.
Hooray for
This is the plan in
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1269811. I'll be doing this
for Nightly users shortly (right now they're just getting no update if
they're on yesterday's build), and we'll do it for other channels as well.
On 2016-05-03 06:17 PM, Robert Strong wrote:
App updat
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Xidorn Quan wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Lawrence Mandel
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:18:17PM -0500, Adam Roach wrote:
>> > > On 5/3/16 4:59 PM, Justin Dolske wrote:
>> > > > On 5
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:18:17PM -0500, Adam Roach wrote:
> > > On 5/3/16 4:59 PM, Justin Dolske wrote:
> > > > On 5/3/16 12:21 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > * The upd
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:18:17PM -0500, Adam Roach wrote:
> > On 5/3/16 4:59 PM, Justin Dolske wrote:
> > > On 5/3/16 12:21 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> > >
> > > > * The update server has been reconfigured to not serve Nightly
> > > > updates
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Chris Peterson
wrote:
> On 5/3/16 3:11 AM, Xidorn Quan wrote:
>
>> > Then we should plan to drop Universal builds in the same release,
>>> > because without supporting 10.6 or 32-bit NPAPI plugins, the 32-bit
>>> half
>>> > of the build is just cruft.
>>>
>>
> That
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:18:17PM -0500, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 5/3/16 4:59 PM, Justin Dolske wrote:
> > On 5/3/16 12:21 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> >
> > > * The update server has been reconfigured to not serve Nightly
> > > updates to
> > > 10.6-10.8 (bug 1269811)
> >
> > Are we going to be sho
On 5/3/16 3:11 AM, Xidorn Quan wrote:
> Then we should plan to drop Universal builds in the same release,
> because without supporting 10.6 or 32-bit NPAPI plugins, the 32-bit half
> of the build is just cruft.
That doesn't mean we can't remove 32-bit NPAPI support on OS X sooner
than 53. Most
It can be done with a one-off update mar file that includes the files that
aren't included in an update.
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 5/3/16 4:59 PM, Justin Dolske wrote:
>
>> On 5/3/16 12:21 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>>
>> * The update server has been reconfigured to no
On 5/3/16 4:59 PM, Justin Dolske wrote:
On 5/3/16 12:21 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
* The update server has been reconfigured to not serve Nightly
updates to
10.6-10.8 (bug 1269811)
Are we going to be showing some kind of notice to affected users upon
Release? That is, if I'm a 10.6 user and I
App update has the ability to show the user a message that the system is no
longer supported based on the update.xml served by release engineering.
Robert
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Justin Dolske wrote:
> On 5/3/16 12:21 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>
> * The update server has been reconfigure
On 5/3/16 12:21 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
* The update server has been reconfigured to not serve Nightly updates to
10.6-10.8 (bug 1269811)
Are we going to be showing some kind of notice to affected users upon
Release? That is, if I'm a 10.6 user and I update to Firefox 48, at some
point shou
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Lawrence Mandel
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ralph Giles wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Lawrence Mandel
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > I had planned to update the thread after the
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2016, at 08:26 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
> > We're tentatively planning to remove NPAPI support (for plugins other
> > than Flash) in 53 because 52 is the next ESR. We'd like ESR 52 to
> > support NPAPI as a transition option
On Mon, May 2, 2016, at 08:26 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
> We're tentatively planning to remove NPAPI support (for plugins other
> than Flash) in 53 because 52 is the next ESR. We'd like ESR 52 to
> support NPAPI as a transition option for enterprise users that rely on
> Java.
Then we should plan
On 5/2/16 5:18 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Chris Peterson
wrote:
On 5/2/16 4:10 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
So where does that leave us on Universal OS X builds? IIRC our blocker is
the need to support 32-bit Silverlight in the plugin container so various
streaming
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Chris Peterson
wrote:
> On 5/2/16 4:10 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>
>> So where does that leave us on Universal OS X builds? IIRC our blocker is
>> the need to support 32-bit Silverlight in the plugin container so various
>> streaming services using it don't break. W
On 5/2/16 4:10 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
So where does that leave us on Universal OS X builds? IIRC our blocker is
the need to support 32-bit Silverlight in the plugin container so various
streaming services using it don't break. Where are we on that front?
(Reminder: killing Universal OS X packag
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Lawrence Mandel
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ralph Giles wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Lawrence Mandel
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > I had planned to update the thread after the
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> So this presumably means we can turn off automation running on 10.6-10.8 on
> mozilla-central? I believe that will drastically increase our OS X
> automation capacity...
Yes, please. We can't take advantage of any of the engineering
benefits
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ralph Giles wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Lawrence Mandel
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I had planned to update the thread after the post went live so that I
> had
> > > the link. Thank you for posti
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ralph Giles wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Lawrence Mandel
> wrote:
>
> > I had planned to update the thread after the post went live so that I had
> > the link. Thank you for posting it.
>
> The blog post just says "August 2016". Firefox 48 is schedule
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
> I had planned to update the thread after the post went live so that I had
> the link. Thank you for posting it.
The blog post just says "August 2016". Firefox 48 is scheduled for
release August 2. Can you confirm that means we can start r
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 12:38:37AM -0400, Kohei Yoshino wrote:
> > Today's announcement from Mozilla:
> >
> https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2016/04/29/update-on-firefox-support-for-os-x/
> >
> > The decision is fine but why don't they
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 12:38:37AM -0400, Kohei Yoshino wrote:
> Today's announcement from Mozilla:
> https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2016/04/29/update-on-firefox-support-for-os-x/
>
> The decision is fine but why don't they update this thread? (I know, Mozilla
> is very bad at communicat
Hi Kohei,
I had planned to update the thread after the post went live so that I had
the link. Thank you for posting it.
Lawrence
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Kohei Yoshino
wrote:
> Today's announcement from Mozilla:
>
> https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2016/04/29/update-on-firefox-
Today's announcement from Mozilla:
https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2016/04/29/update-on-firefox-support-for-os-x/
The decision is fine but why don't they update this thread? (I know, Mozilla is
very bad at communication.)
-Kohei
___
dev-platfo
Release engineering is working on this decision, stay tuned.
—
- Milan
> On Apr 19, 2016, at 12:02 , Nicolas Silva wrote:
>
> Re-re-ping.
> Being able to use a more recent standard library would simplify a lot of
> things on our end. For example updating 3rd party libraries such as
> skia, whi
Re-re-ping.
Being able to use a more recent standard library would simplify a lot of
things on our end. For example updating 3rd party libraries such as
skia, which depends on a modern stl, is a pain, and there are plenty of
other examples.
Cheers,
Nical
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016, at 07:33 PM, a...@im
Hi Christine,
I'm not sure if you got help yet for the performance issue you're
experiencing. If not I may be able to offer some assistance starting on
Monday.
Please email me back.
--
Anthony Hughes
Sr. Quality Engineer, Platform (GFX)
Mozilla Coroporation
On 2016-04-01 8:48 AM, cecemi..
Doesn't hombrew provide a version of g++ that includes c++11
04.04.2016, 18:12, "Nathan Froyd" :
> Re-ping on this thread. It would be really useful to have a decision
> one way or the other for figuring out exactly how a C++11 STL on OS X
> is going to work.
>
> -Nathan
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 a
Re-ping on this thread. It would be really useful to have a decision
one way or the other for figuring out exactly how a C++11 STL on OS X
is going to work.
-Nathan
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Ralph Giles wrote:
> Discussion seems to have wound down. Is there a decision on this?
>
> -r
>
Hello,
What information do you want, Milan?
Christine
From: Lawrence Mandel
Date: Friday, Apr 1, 2016 11:05 AM
To: C Reed
Cc: dev-platform , "Sreckovic, Milan"
Subject: Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:48 AM, wrote:
> On Thurs
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:48 AM, wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:04:03 PM UTC-6, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> > This is notice of an intent to deprecate support within Firefox for the
> > following old versions of MacOS: 10.6, 10.7, and 10.8
> >
> > The motivation for this change is that
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:04:03 PM UTC-6, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> This is notice of an intent to deprecate support within Firefox for the
> following old versions of MacOS: 10.6, 10.7, and 10.8
>
> The motivation for this change is that we have continued failures that
> are specific t
Discussion seems to have wound down. Is there a decision on this?
-r
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:59:20 AM UTC-8, Bobby Holley wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Terrence Cole wrote:
>
> > We've had this conversation several times in the last few years and I think
> > I've finally figured out why it has always felt subtly wrong.
> >
> > Our share of use
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Benjamin Smedberg
wrote:
>
>
> On 3/12/2016 7:19 PM, Gabor Krizsanits wrote:
>
>>
>> Seems like a tough decision for such a short time... There were some
>> great
>> points on both sides so far, but I'm missing the math. To evaluate the
>> cost/benefit for a deci
On 3/12/2016 7:19 PM, Gabor Krizsanits wrote:
Seems like a tough decision for such a short time... There were some great
points on both sides so far, but I'm missing the math. To evaluate the
cost/benefit for a decision like this we should be able to estimate how
much engineering time does it
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Anthony Jones wrote:
> My understanding is that the reason people stick to 10.6 is because of
> Rosetta[1] which offers PowerPC compatibility.
I have a laptop on 10.6. The hardware can theoretically support newer
OS X versions, and I've upgraded it, but newer OS X
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 04:28:50PM -0800, Terrence Cole wrote:
> We've had this conversation several times in the last few years and I think
> I've finally figured out why it has always felt subtly wrong.
>
> Our share of users on older platforms is disproportionally high compared to
> the market
I don't think it's entirely unfair -- both sets of numbers have their
place. OS X is an important platform, but it's also true that these older
OS X releases represent a tiny portion of our overall userbase.
For a few more data points...
Back in Firefox 16 when we dropped 10.5 -- another long-liv
Mike Hommey wrote on 11.03.2016 01:52:
>> Why can't we just not ship e10s to these users? We have a number of other
>> populations we're not shipping to, at least for now.
>
> This is actually a sensible option.
> A not-quite top-notch but up-to-date Firefox is still better than old
> versions o
My understanding is that the reason people stick to 10.6 is because
of Rosetta[1] which offers PowerPC compatibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software)
Chrome is dropping support for these platforms so it seems like an
opportunity to pick up some
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Benjamin Smedberg
wrote:
> This will affect approximately 1.2% of our current release population.
> Here are the specific breakdowns by OS version:
>
>
Seems like a tough decision for such a short time... There were some great
points on both sides so far, but I'm
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Terrence Cole wrote:
>
> > We need to drop support for OSX 10.8 and Windows Vista yesterday, not
> next
> > year. We need to cut our losses and ship E10S while we're still relevant.
> > We need to be the browser
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Chris Hofmann
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Benjamin Smedberg
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 3/10/2016 5:25 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> It's unfair to mention those populations by percentage of the global
> >> Firefox population.
> >>
> >
> > Why
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Terrence Cole wrote:
> We need to drop support for OSX 10.8 and Windows Vista yesterday, not next
> year. We need to cut our losses and ship E10S while we're still relevant.
> We need to be the browser that works best on Android and Windows 10, not
> the browser t
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Terrence Cole wrote:
>
>> We've had this conversation several times in the last few years and I
>> think
>> I've finally figured out why it has always felt subtly wrong.
>>
>> Our share of users on older
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Terrence Cole wrote:
> We've had this conversation several times in the last few years and I think
> I've finally figured out why it has always felt subtly wrong.
>
> Our share of users on older platforms is disproportionally high compared to
> the market in gener
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Benjamin Smedberg
wrote:
>
>
> On 3/10/2016 5:25 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
>
>>
>> It's unfair to mention those populations by percentage of the global
>> Firefox population.
>>
>
> Why do you think this is unfair? This is about making the best use of our
> limited e
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Benjamin Smedberg
wrote:
> On 3/10/2016 5:25 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> It's unfair to mention those populations by percentage of the global
>> Firefox population.
>
> Why do you think this is unfair? This is about making the best use of our
> limited engineering/te
We've had this conversation several times in the last few years and I think
I've finally figured out why it has always felt subtly wrong.
Our share of users on older platforms is disproportionally high compared to
the market in general because of our decline in market share. People who
don't want
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:20:30PM -0500, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> We intend to do the following things:
>
> * add version checking to the builds so that they refuse to run on these
> versions of MacOS
If we change the macos target version, that's not possible. The
resulting binaries can't even
On 3/10/2016 5:25 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
It's unfair to mention those populations by percentage of the global
Firefox population.
Why do you think this is unfair? This is about making the best use of
our limited engineering/testing/QA resources, and so what really matters
is the total impa
On 10/03/16 06:17 PM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> given they haven't upgraded from 10.6 - 10.8 why do you believe they are
> likely to in the future?
1. their machine can die and they'll replace it with a new one that will
come with the latest MacOS, and restore their data from a Time Machine
backup.
I'm not making any claims other than pointing out that the upgrade is
possible for some users, and its a workaround we can give in SUMO. I
have no other irons in this fire, just making sure we know the
workarounds (and how accessible they are) is an important piece of
this decision.
As has been s
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 07:49:26AM +0800, Kyle Huey wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Benjamin Smedberg
> wrote:
>
> > This is notice of an intent to deprecate support within Firefox for the
> > following old versions of MacOS: 10.6, 10.7, and 10.8
> >
> > The motivation for this change i
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Benjamin Smedberg
wrote:
> This is notice of an intent to deprecate support within Firefox for the
> following old versions of MacOS: 10.6, 10.7, and 10.8
>
> The motivation for this change is that we have continued failures that are
> specific to these old operat
That brings up a point, if a user is on 10.8, gets moved to ESR 45, and
later moves to 10.11, will they be stuck on ESR still?
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Tyler Downer wrote:
> The other thing to note is many of those users can still update to 10.11,
> and I imagine that over the next year
On 3/10/2016 6:38 PM, Nils Ohlmeier wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but what means “deprecate support” exactly?
I’m only asking because of the opposing reply’s so far. I’m assuming it means
we stop testing and building/releasing for these. Would it be a possible
alternative to turn of the tests, b
> On Mar 10, 2016, at 10:03, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
>
> This is notice of an intent to deprecate support within Firefox for the
> following old versions of MacOS: 10.6, 10.7, and 10.8
Excuse my ignorance, but what means “deprecate support” exactly?
I’m only asking because of the opposing re
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:20:41PM -0600, Syd Polk wrote:
> I do, however, think that supporting 10.6 is a heavy, heavy burden, as its
> C++ compiler is truly ancient.
We build Firefox targetting 10.6 with a development version of clang 3.8
(that is, a clang build from a svn revision during the 3
10.6 is the last version with Rosetta. Given how old the machines are that can
run 10.6, and given how old 10.6 itself is, it is highly likely that 10.6
customers still have PowerPC apps that they run and they cannot/will not
upgrade.
Also, the perception of the Mac community in general is that
On 3/10/16 5:17 PM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 04:01:15PM -0700, Tyler Downer wrote:
The other thing to note is many of those users can still update to 10.11,
and I imagine that over the next year that number will continue to go down.
given they haven't upgraded from 10.6 -
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
