Talk:Firefox version history/Archive 1

17.0.9esr

I think 17.0.9esr should now be RED not GREEN in the list. Now we have 24esr! 83.77.253.211 (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Good Doubt :) But it is still may be available for Download! Raghusri (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

17.0.10esr is now available so 17.0.9esr is now RED. Although 17.0.10esr should be the last version of the 17.0.x ESR branch, it is still supported and should stay YELLOW until the end of the current cycle with the releases of Firefox 26.0 and 24.2.0esr. See this approved proposal from Mozilla. GbDorn (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

What is this article for?

I think this article is against the Wikipedia's policy on software updates. Especially since the rapid release schedule, listing all nightly/aurora/6-7 beta releases for each version is quite useless and takes A LOT of place. (By the way a lot of them are missing if you look at the ftp server...) There is absolutely no need for this since changes between these versions are insignificant for the most part.

I could see the point in having the dates and changelogs for the first nightly/aurora/beta for each version if there were enough differences between them or if some features were added/removed between nightly/aurora/beta/release and it was stated in the article. The last column of the table is supposed to be "Significant changes" but Firefox 7 is the last to have had any listed.

Actually I think this page is useless as all relevant information (except for the codenames) can be found in Mozilla_Firefox#Release_history and History of Firefox. GbDorn (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, listing many minor version changes that are often only a few days apart is not in line with the guidelines. SolidInk (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Specific release End Of Life Links seem to mostly point to the same irrelevant information

So I wrote this little Firefox Scratchpad snippet to highlight the issue

   // Replace /\b(const|let)\B/ with "$1 "
   'use strict';
   let a = document.body.querySelectorAll('a');
   let linksByHref = {
   };
   let linksToEol = Array.prototype.forEach.call(a, function (link) {
     if (/^End-of-life/.test(link.textContent)) {
       if (!linksByHref[link.href]) {
         linksByHref[link.href] = [
         ];
       }
       linksByHref[link.href].push(link.textContent);
     }
   });
   JSON.stringify(linksByHref, null, 2);

Here are the links and what they are used for

{
 "https://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2006/04/13/firefox-108-security-and-stability-release-and-end-of-life-for-10x/": [
   "End-of-life 1.0.x product line"
 ],
 "https://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2007/05/30/firefox-2004-and-firefox-15012-security-and-stability-update/": [
   "End-of-life 1.5.0.x product line"
 ],
 "https://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2009/01/19/firefox-20020-users-offered-a-free-upgrade/": [
   "End-of-life 2.0.0.x product line"
 ],
 "https://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2010/03/30/firefox-3-5-9-and-3-0-19-security-updates-now-available/": [
   "End-of-life 3.0.x product line"
 ],
 "https://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2011/04/28/firefox-4-0-1-3-6-17-and-3-5-19-security-updates-now-available/": [
   "End-of-life 3.5.x product line"
 ],
 "https://wiki.mozilla.org/Enterprise/Firefox/ExtendedSupport:Proposal": [
   "End-of-life 3.6.x product line"
 ],
 "https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Planning/2011-06-22#Release_.283.6.2C_4.0.2C_5.0.29": [
   "End-of-life 4.0.x product line"
 ],
 "https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease#4.0.x_and_Previous_Releases_.5Bjoduinn.2C_.5D": [
   "End-of-life 5.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 6.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 7.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 8.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 9.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 10.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 11.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 13.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 14.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 15.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 16.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 17.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 18.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 19.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 20.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 21.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 22.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 23.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 24.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 25.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 26.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 27.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 28.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 29.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 30.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 31.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 32.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 33.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 34.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 35.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 36.0.x product line",
   "End-of-life 37.0.x product line"
 ],
 "https://wiki.mozilla.org/Enterprise/Firefox/ExtendedSupport:Proposal#Proposal": [
   "End-of-life 10.0.x ESR product line",
   "End-of-life 17.0.x ESR product line",
   "End-of-life 24.x.x ESR product line"
 ]
}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaran (talk • contribs) 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I couldn't find this link even in the Wayback Machine. I've begun adding Template:Failed verification to them. –P₁h₃r₁e₃d₁₃ (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

End-of-life x.x.x product line on y.y.y seems to have the wrong year

Beginning with

  End-of-life 11.0.x product line on April 24, 2012.
  End-of-life 13.0.x product line on July 17, 2012.
  End-of-life 14.0.x product line on August 28, 2012.
  ...
  ....

the End-of-life seems to be one year later?

In case of normal releases, support period is 6 weeks after initial release. For example, version 11.0 was released on March 13, 2012, so, EOL of version 11.0 was indeed April 24, 2012.

In case of ESR releases, support period is 54 weeks after initial release. For example, version 10.0 was released on January 31, 2012, so, EOL of version 10.0 ESR was February 12, 2013 (EOL of normal 10.0 was March 13, 2012). --Claw of Slime (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

64 bit

Since Firefox 43 version, Mozilla releases the non beta 64 bit version for windows. This needs mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.59.46.23 (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Firefox release history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110629211729/http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/3.7a5/releasenotes/ to http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/3.7a5/releasenotes/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Outdated version number

The recent stable version (as of 29 March 2019) is 66.0.2, not 66.0 as the article suggests. Do you need up to date information? Firefox itself will tell you the truth. Just go to Help -> About Firefox. Vikom ^talk 21:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. - dcljr (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Table split

I have been BOLD and split the huge table of releases into several smaller tables based on version number. The first division point is when the rapid release cycles started (beginning with version 5). The subsequent division points are essentially arbitrary, but occur at version numbers that are multiples of 10 (so 5–9 in the second table, 10–19 in the third, 20–29 in the fourth, etc.). This should make it easier for users to find the versions they are actually interested in (and might make it easier for some editors to update the information, since the tables are much smaller). Note, BTW, that the original huge table was not sortable, which might have been an argument against splitting it up. Other opinions on this are welcome, however… - dcljr (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Note to editors who frequently add info to the table(s): I have added some anchors that you may find helpful (i.e., to create bookmarks to [more?] easily find the table you need to update). As suggested by the diff I just linked to, if you're adding info about the latest available versions, use Firefox version history#Latest releases; if you need to indicate EOL of older ESR versions, say, use Firefox version history#Oldest supported. HTH… - dcljr (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Firefox version history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100213161240/http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/3.7a1/releasenotes/ to http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/3.7a1/releasenotes/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130209224310/http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/4.0/linux-x86_64/ to ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/4.0/linux-x86_64/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Firefox version history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121221075954/http://blog.mozilla.org/products/2011/07/08/firefox-5-minor-update-for-mac-coming-soon/ to http://blog.mozilla.org/products/2011/07/08/firefox-5-minor-update-for-mac-coming-soon/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Runs afoul of WP:NOTCHANGELOG

Per WP:NOTCHANGELOG, this article should be deleted. I personally don't have anything against version history articles, but Wikipedia does. --Saledomo (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Asking to delete this article is kind of extreme. Realistic suggestion would be to strip the old test releases off from table, similar iOS version history as it doesn't keep information for old beta's. I'm up for it... anyone else? Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 00:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree it is extreme. I don't expect version history articles to be deleted, but Wikipedia policy seems to be extreme with this regard and Wikipedians appear to be wildly in favor of it, under the WP:AfD section. Brought this up after encountering Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Chrome OS version history. --Saledomo (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Google Chrome version history didn't go, so I don't think this should go either. Apparently it doesn't collect old beta's unlike here. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 16:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Instead of outright deletion, this article could easily be merged (back) into History of Firefox as a series of smaller (preferably collapsed) tables, one per section of that article. (This article was originally split off from that other one back in Feb 2012, and the large version table there was finally completely merged to here in Jun 2017.) Each entry in the "Browser name" column here is already linked to a section of that other article. I'm suggesting we actually move the table information back into that other article into the relevant places, rather than simply linking to there. Of course, some editors will object to such a change, but they might accept it if the alternative is deletion (i.e., complete disappearance of the info from WP). Personally, I find these tables (unwieldy as they are) much easier to use than the cited sources, which have one page of info per minor version. (Not that that argument should carry the day; I'm just saying…) Note also that after the merge, the other article would still not merely be a changelog, and hence the info may be more likely to stick around there than if it stays here. It's only a matter of time before someone puts this article up for deletion. - dcljr (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I'm talking about done through version 4. Opinions? - dcljr (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I have made this a "formal proposal" at Talk:History of Firefox#Merge version-history tables back to here. - dcljr (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Release dates for off-cycle updates

There's a piece of data that matters to me. That is the release date of the latest "stable release", including off-cycle updates. Presently that is Firefox 65.0.2. Neither this article, Firefox version history, nor History of Firefox, contains it. These dates are probably somewhere in mozilla.org but that site is difficult to navigate. Would someone please update at least 1 of the 2 Wikipedia articles I mentioned? (The date is currently in the article "Firefox" but that article hasn't been a consistent resource for me on this piece of data.) Oaklandguy (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It was just added (with a citation) to History of Firefox#Version 65. (Note that editors are continually updating all three articles, as you can see from their page histories. The newest info doesn't always get added immediately.) - dcljr (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2019 - please change End-of-life date on line 1821 from non-italicized to italicized

Request: please italicize of End-of-life date on line 1821 date for consistency with other End-of-life dates.

Examples:
line 1821, the date is not italicized - End-of-life 4.0.x product line</a> on June 21, 2011.

line 1897, the date is italicized - End-of-life 5.0.x product line</a> on August 16, 2011.

Reason: I have a script that curls the End-of-life dates for each product line and uses the brackets as part of an egrep. All other End-of-life dates contain the brackets. This difference causes a mismatch when presenting the final output. Awkwardsedrick (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 15:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that the placement of the periods with respect to the italics (before or after the closing italics) was inconsistent in a handful of places, so I've just made that consistent throughout the entire article (period following the italics, as it was in the vast majority of cases). If you can, I'd recommend trying to make your 'egrep' search more robust to differences such as these. Note also that it has been pointed out that the URL used to cite those EOL statements seems to be completely useless now, so it's likely that will change in the future (in case you're using that as part of your detection of EOL statements). - dcljr (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Merged to History of Firefox

The merge I mentioned in my last comment at #Runs afoul of WP:NOTCHANGELOG above (notice of which has also appeared at the top of this article since 16 February) has now been accomplished. See Talk:History of Firefox#Merge done for details. - dcljr (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

And this has now been reverted. See same talk page section linked to above. - dcljr (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

I suggest we change: Among the additions were: a page zoom feature for more than a decade that allows users to set the zoom level on a per-site basis

To: Among the additions were: while a page zoom feature has existed for more than a decade on a per-site basis, a new global zoom preference was added

See the originally quoted source for clarification: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/73.0/releasenotes/ Xondak (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I'm not sure where in the article you're talking about. If you tell me more, I'll be happy to accept this edit request. Interstellarity (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2020

At Firefox 68 through 77 last line change pandimic to pandemic Wslysnts (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 16:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

About the template for the timeline of Mozilla Firefox

I think that Template:Timeline Mozilla Firefox is starting to be a problem. It seems that when I try to add in a new year, all the words in the text seem to squeeze in so tightly that they all overlap each other, and if I add in a few years from now, pretty soon the words will all cover each other so that they'll all be unreadable. When I try to make the chart go wider, it won't go any wider than 1600x2000 pixels! This whole template is a disaster, period. I think I remember what Scarce2 told me: "The way it's organized negates the purpose of this template as it's more difficult to decipher than a simple list (the nearly illegible text only making it worse). For example, the lines dividing the chart into months is way too light, and the years should be on top as they are the main aspect of the template (also consider how tall the chart is, requiring scrolling to see the only labels). I would suggest removing the template entirely and just using a list or a regular HTML table until some other type of graphic can be made." And Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) says it best: "I only see the purpose of this template as a timeline, AKA release history in visual form, but it's getting bloated with rapid releases nowadays. It's a disaster, really." So now I'm considering getting rid of the timeline altogether, but what do you think otherwise? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"to not be"?

My proposal is to replace every "to not be" with "not to be". 85.193.228.103 (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Android "Fennec" end of life "Fenix" (preview) stable reliese out now?

Does anyone know when 68.x.x will end?

--GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴 09:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2020

Change Firefox 83.0b1 Beta, Developer Edition release dates from October 19, 2020, to October 20, 2020, as indicated in the reference note which says the same. 76.95.183.118 (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Silikonz (💬│🖋) 07:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2021

Version 88 has released as of today, so the top paragraph should be updated to reflect that. See https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/88.0/releasenotes/ 192.82.144.227 (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

New ongoing downloads indicator

Maybe we should mention that since the version 89, the progress of ongoing downloads is visible all the time because the new circular indicator is much smaller than the previous linear one, and has been placed in the menu bar. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2021

Remove all claims that failed verification on Firefox version history. 2601:246:CA01:31C0:5DB6:6E17:327A:296A (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 16:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Article size growth

What would be the best approach to the large article size before it gets out of hand as the more future Firefox releases are coming along the way? There are some things on article that can be shaved, but I'm slow as a writer, or I'm just not good at it, so I can't really do much with paragraphs. Other than that, what is there that we can remove to reduce the size? Or-- it's not something to be concerned about-- there's a hard limit (2,097,152 bytes article size or post-expand size) that currently we're about 65% to there (1,306,307 bytes post-expand size currently, the template:cite web templates this article constantly use is the biggest influence to this size).

Rewrite paragraphs? Remove optional parameters from cite web templates? Split and when? Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 00:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

We'll (after enough time) need to break it up. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

What can be divided when it's time to do it? Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 21:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

IMHO, it would be wise to split the article (as soon as possible) by moving first part of Rapid releases (versions 5 .. 59) to a new article called "Firefox 5 through 59" (or something like that). Maybe it would be even better to separate only versions 5 .. 47 ("Firefox 5 through 47"), those released before the new multi-process architecture feature named Electrolysis which was applied to Firefox 48, because there there is a clear separation in OS compatibility and other features.

Right now this article is in 9th position, among the longest pages (in en.wikipedia), with a size of wiki source code around 450KB which expands into more than 1.5MB of HTML code; exceeding the threshold of 400KB (wiki source code) should be considered a bad practice, specially if the article is very popular and it has a lot of reference links, because increasing size over that limit leads to using too much time in managing changes, in storing and retrieving the page, something that becomes rather evident when there is a lot of web traffic in wikipedia. I guess that before the release of Firefox 100 the article will have a size (wiki source code) of almost 500KB, so it would be better to do the split now or in any case within early 2022. ade56facc (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Section summary for version 102 seems wrong.

The section summary for versions 102-110 begins with a description of version 91. 67.82.144.211 (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Urgent proposal to split article.

The article is currently the 6th largest article on Wikipedia as of the time this proposal is published, with 497kB. 486kB of this is from a section "Rapid releases", which is now officially too long to navigate comfortably. As firefox will most certainly continue to update, according to the current and future releases, there would be no room for newers versions to be added, as there is now an increased risk of broken templates.

Therefore, I suggest that this massive section should split into two articles: Versions 5 to 67 (290kB) and from Version 68 (196KB). When the future releases release, they can be put into the 'from Version 68' article. I'm not sure how to name these split portions, but if it was possible for the early versions to be split into its own article, then so can this. zsteve21 (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It sounds very bad. It would be more convenient to split the article by moving the tables into a separate article and keep the summaries here. LinuxPower (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

agreed that the article is too long and sometimes needs to be done about it

but IMO splitting it is like doesn't really address the problem here; there is plainly just too much content not just in a tech nical/nological perspective but from most importantly an human one. is anyone really going to benefit from having all this information? is anyone even going to read it?

this page fits perfectly WP:INDISCRIMINATE #4 of what wp should not be; plus the majority of citations are from mozilla itself, and therefore ought to be removed along with the material they support. all in all the solution is to trim/summarize/cut away the bloat on the article

| Mignof (talk • contribs) 12:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Splitting would be inappropriate; this cruft should be removed entirely. DFlhb (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I would argue for splitting it. The page is much to big and slows down my computer. While this page may fit WP:INDISCRIMINATE #4, you could also argue that the Google Chrome version history page does too, yet it is also on wikipedia. Also some people may find this information interesting, and this might be the only place to get a complete change log for firefox that is on one page and in one place. Jake01756 🗩 🖉 23:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)