Mod parent insightful. Sadly this is the main reason why a 13 month calendar, with 4 weeks per month wouldn't be adopted.

I had thought of a system (probably not unique) of using the above, and changing the name of days, ranging from 1 to 7day, with 8day added at the end of the last week of the year, and 9day added on leap years. So 1day would always be at the beginning of the month; on the 8th; 15th; and 22nd. You would always know what day of the week it is based on the day of the month.

Today's date would be 2011-13-26, with a symbol added at the end to denote the new date format during the transition period. New Year's Eve would be on the 29th.

The main downside I can think of is that there would be potential confusion if you had two date formats for a long period of time, so would require a large number of countries to change to the new format at the same time; and that there would be a considerable amount of resistance to change.

It's a format designed for practical use with how we work with a 7-day system; however, it's incompatible with the needs of those who depend upon a fixed day system, and changes to the idea would make the format less appealing; which is a shame, really.

That's because of the memshrink project (earlier report on /.). You can read a weekly status report on Nicholas Nethercote's blog.

Another project that's recently started is called 'Snappy', which aims to increase the responsiveness of users' interactions with Firefox. There's a thread on Mozillazine tracking updates on Snappy.

I don't think it's as bad as you make out. I get the impression that version numbers were to be depreceated and replaced with the terms Beta; Aurora and Nightly. Features would be mentioned as landing on Nightly/Aurora, appearing in users' browsers in so many weeks time. Releases themselves (every 6 weeks) aren't news in themselves. If Firefox developers communicate this clearly to reporters, then perhaps perceptions will change.

If users would still benefit from version numbers (e.g. for tech support), then I have a suggestion to make:

Next year, Firefox will be releasing version 12. On that version, there's the option of transitioning to a date-based system, with major versions following the year, and minor versions being incremented every 6 weeks. After version 11, the 1st release with this format would be 12.1; the 2nd release, 12.2; and so on. Here's how it looks like in practice:

* 10.0 January 31, 2012
* 11.0 March 13, 2012
* 12.1 April 24, 2012
* 12.2 June 5, 2012
* 12.3 July 17, 2012
* 12.4 August 28, 2012
* 12.5 October 9, 2012
* 12.6 November 20, 2012
* 13.1 January 1, 2013

Switching to a date-based system has the advantage that users will know what the current version is without having to report it, as the year corresponds to the version. Firefox in 2012 would be referred to as version 12. Reporters would focus on new and upcoming features in Firefox primarily, so that stories have a talking point and posters' comments are pertinent, primarily focused on features and improvements.

An example of an open source group who uses a similar format is Ubuntu (who base the version on the year, and the minor version on a 6 month schedule). Versions matter with this format; but there's still a sense of progression. We know what the version will be in 3 years time - even if we don't know what the features will be. Now try to imagine what Firefox's version would be with the new system, compared with the old one.

Consider that this is an issue that would involve a minor change; would benefit users and reporters (reducing confusion); and improve the quality of comments (on Firefox itself), then I think that Firefox developers will be pleasantly surprised with the results.

If they do want to focus more on development than on numbers, they would benefit by switching to a date system. I hope that some of the Firefox developers read this, as the value of changing merits the effort involved.

(There's a strong chance that I won't be able to post this when the story appears on /. due to Christmas preparations. If you agree with the post, please could you post it when it appears, thank you.)

The Firefox team have taken criticism for their decision to inflate version numbers to make them effectively irrelevant (one of their goals is to match Chrome in this regard; though, Chrome's version number is still fequently mentioned). They haven't done this to spite users; rather, it indicates a change in their work flow; asking for a change back to old versioning is a distraction in their regards.

But change takes time, and in my opinion, they've underestimated how much resistance users and news sites would have (former because a major version change with few new features is contradictory, without silent installs and with incompatible extensions; latter because if not after every version, then they don't know when to post updates about releases). The impression is that Firefox has developed a responsive release system; but has hurt users in the course of doing so.

Next year, Firefox will be releasing version 12. On that version, there's the option of transitioning to a date-based system, with major versions following the year, and minor versions being incremented every 6 weeks. After version 11, the 1st release with this format would be 12.1; the 2nd release, 12.2; and so on. Here's how it looks like in practice:

* 10.0 January 31, 2012
* 11.0 March 13, 2012
* 12.1 April 24, 2012
* 12.2 June 5, 2012
* 12.3 July 17, 2012
* 12.4 August 28, 2012
* 12.5 October 9, 2012
* 12.6 November 20, 2012
* 13.1 January 1, 2013

Switching to a date-based system has the advantage that users will know what the current version is without having to report it, as the year corresponds to the version. Firefox in 2012 would be referred to as version 12. Reporters would focus on new and upcoming features in Firefox primarily, so that stories have a talking point and posters' comments are pertinent, primarily focused on features and improvements.

An example of an open source group who uses a similar format is Ubuntu (who base the version on the year, and the minor version on a 6 month schedule). Versions matter with this format; but there's still a sense of progression. We know what the version will be in 5 years time - even if we don't know what the features will be. Now try to imagine what Firefox's version would be with the new system, compared with the old one. Consider that this is an issue that isn't going away; would involve a minor change; and would benefit users and reporters, and improve the quality of comments (on Firefox itself).

If they do want to focus more on development than on numbers, they would benefit by switching to a date system. I hope that the Firefox developers reads this, as the value of changing merits the effort involved.