If you're curious what this means... years ago, Firefox took forever to hit 3.6, and the decision was made (mirroring Chrome) that releases would switch from "release when everything is done" to "the trains always run on time", where the release would go out at a predetermined time and anything that was ready would make it.
Mozilla also has a habit of simple question-based domains, such as "arewefastyet.com", for tracking progress.
But… the 3.6 -> 4.0 release was just such a pain. We spent more than a year trying to cram too many features in v4.
Clearly feature-based releases were just not cutting it, especially as Chrome was shipping new versions fast.
For the longest time people were saying it was the wrong move, but really - that was absolutely necessary, and proved out to be the right thing to do. The Stable / Beta / Alpha ("aurora", was that the name?) channels massively improved our yield :)
>For the longest time people were saying it was the wrong move,
I detested Firefox from v4 onwards and finally got off the crazytrain at 12.
Other than the version numbering becoming vapid, the browser itself became vapid. No longer was Firefox about the users, it was about Mozilla.
That has remained the case to this day, and I have not bought a ticket to this day. I'm not counting the first ticket as a purchase since it was forced on me.
I'm hopping between the Pale Moon space station and (begrudgingly) the Chromium train now depending on what I'm doing.
This was back when Internet Explorer was at version 7. Some Mozilla folks told me they used to get questions like "when are you going to upgrade to Internet 7 like Microsoft?"
If I remember right, after Firefox 4 they skipped a few versions and started the train model, while also trying to de-emphasize the version number in marketing.
It's definitely a common thought but there are other considerations too regardless if that's really true or not e.g. browsers needed constant security updates anyways, no reason to not also regularly deliver features that were sitting ready to be used with that update infrastructure.
It's easier to do small releases often. You have less chances to break multiple parts of the application. You also don't end up in a cycle of "Wait! I'll add just one more thing" which is very common with projects tend to less often.
Why is that site so poorly designed? I tried in both FF and Chrome. In FF I see nothing on any chart. On Chrome, I see a few data points in July and then nothing else.
Mozilla also has a habit of simple question-based domains, such as "arewefastyet.com", for tracking progress.