The question is should we usually actively need to delete pre ESR material when revising most articles ?
This post is prompted by a post in the L10N section (see under).
With the introduction of the rapid Release cycle and then ESR, it is probably, for now safe to say we only need have support in KB articles for versions the Selector shows.
Normally I imagine anything not displayed is of little consequence. We may tend to not remove obsolete sections. With most articles any older entries would have been reviewed and localised previously. The live bookmarks article mentioned above was odd because it was something we unarchived, and apparently considered pre Australis versions were worth keeping.
Additionally at some future date we may also need to be aware of differences between Desktop and ESR and take that into account
Even with ESR 38 series for instance signed extensions handling may differ. ( & what about pocket integration did that backport ? )
ESR may diverge from Desktop. That may need reviewing at a future date depending on the path ESR takes.
Currently ESR is I guess a continuing project for the foreseeable future. Ordinarily anything we write for a KB article Desktop Firefox will be remain suitable for the ESR version. I suppose there is a possibly of ESR diverging somewhat from Firefox desktop. Probably not something we need to worry about now, but something we may need to keep in mind, because next year ESR 45.0 & Fx45 may no longer be identical.
Background
L10N concerns over Live Bookmarks articleMichele Rodaro [said
Article content, "for", and selectable versions of Firefox.
Forgive me for the title…
I updated the Italian version of the Live Bookmarks - Subscribe to a web page for news and updates article.
The last revision of the article includes instructions and images {for not fx29} and {for fx29}.
My question: How can I verify if the content {for not fx29} is correct if the oldest version of Firefox that I can select is the version 31 and I can't see a preview?
I had to carefully check the syntax because the syntax highlighting stopped working (see Bug 1174927), but I can't see a {for not fx29} preview by clicking on the Preview Content button...
I think it's absurd that a localizer must download a version of Firefox prior to version 31 to be able to view content not selectable by the version selector.
Please, consider this issue also for future edits of the KB articles.
Michelle
A Related Policy Thread
I did consider posting in that thread, but it is old, and the title would have needed modifying, so it seems better just to cross link.
Dropping support for Fx 9 and lower/forums/knowledge-base-articles/708440
All versions of Firefox ≤4.0.1 only make up 2.6% of SUMO traffic combined. <snip> There's no need to remove 3.6 or 4 content from an article just for the sake of removing it. {[My emphasis ~J99]) <snip> If an article still has 3.6 content and the user has a 3.6 browser they will still see 3.6 instructions. {[My emphasis ~J99])
<snip>Now we have support for these people (Firefox 3.6 users) not in showfor steps but in articles specifically targeted to them like:
I conclude we would not normally need to show any information in an article that is not found and displayed by the selector. And that if ESR should diverge we should consider specific articles on the subject. However even if we do need specific articles on ESR the main reason for a selector showing Desktop versions appropriate to ESR is to support ESR, so in future we should take extra care over any articles where ESR & Desktop does differ.
'''The question is should we usually actively need to delete pre ESR material when revising most articles ?'''
This post is prompted by a post in the L10N section (see under).
With the introduction of the rapid Release cycle and then ESR, it is probably, for now safe to say we only need have support in KB articles for versions the Selector shows.
Normally I imagine anything not displayed is of little consequence. We may tend to not remove obsolete sections. With most articles any older entries would have been reviewed and localised previously. The live bookmarks article mentioned above was odd because it was something we unarchived, and apparently considered pre Australis versions were worth keeping.
------------
'''Additionally at some future date we may also need to be aware of differences between Desktop and ESR and take that into account'''
Even with ESR 38 series for instance signed extensions handling may differ. ( & what about pocket integration did that backport ? )
ESR may diverge from Desktop. That may need reviewing at a future date depending on the path ESR takes.
Currently ESR is I guess a continuing project for the foreseeable future. Ordinarily anything we write for a KB article Desktop Firefox will be remain suitable for the ESR version. I suppose there is a possibly of ESR diverging somewhat from Firefox desktop. Probably not something we need to worry about now, but something we may need to keep in mind, because next year ESR 45.0 & Fx45 may no longer be identical.
--------
Background
'''L10N concerns over Live Bookmarks article'''
''Michele Rodaro [[/forums/l10n-forum/711380#post-65765 said]''
<blockquote>
<u>Article content, "for", and selectable versions of Firefox.</u>
Forgive me for the title…
I updated the Italian version of the [[Live Bookmarks - Subscribe to a web page for news and updates]] article.
The last revision of the article includes instructions and images {for not fx29} and {for fx29}.
My question: How can I verify if the content {for not fx29} is correct if the oldest version of Firefox that I can select is the version 31 and I can't see a preview?<br>
I had to carefully check the syntax because the syntax highlighting stopped working (see [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1174927 Bug 1174927]), but I can't see a {for not fx29} preview by clicking on the Preview Content button...<br>
I think it's absurd that a localizer must download a version of Firefox prior to version 31 to be able to view content not selectable by the version selector.
Please, consider this issue also for future edits of the KB articles.<br>
Michelle
</blockquote>
* Revision: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/live-bookmarks/compare?locale=en-US&to=97572&from=97425
* Discussion '''Un-archive and update' https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/live-bookmarks/discuss/1750
'''A Related Policy Thread'''
I did consider posting in that thread, but it is old, and the title would have needed modifying, so it seems better just to cross link.
<u>'' Dropping support for Fx 9 and lower'' [/forums/knowledge-base-articles/708440] </u>
* ''Michael Verdi [/forums/knowledge-base-articles/708440 said]''
<blockquote>
All versions of Firefox ≤4.0.1 only make up 2.6% of SUMO traffic combined. <snip> '''There's no need to remove 3.6 or 4 content from an article just for the sake of removing it.''' {[''My emphasis ~J99'']) <snip> If an article still has 3.6 content and the user has a 3.6 browser '''they will still see 3.6 instructions.''' {[''My emphasis ~J99''])
-----
<snip>Now we have support for these people (Firefox 3.6 users) not in showfor steps but in articles specifically targeted to them like:
* [[Firefox 3.6 is no longer supported]]
* [[Common questions after upgrading from Firefox 3.6]] <snip> </blockquote>
I conclude we would not normally need to show any information in an article that is not found and displayed by the selector. And that if ESR should diverge we should consider specific articles on the subject. However even if we do need specific articles on ESR the main reason for a selector showing Desktop versions appropriate to ESR is to support ESR, so in future we should take extra care over any articles where ESR & Desktop does differ.
See my comments in /forums/l10n-forum/711380#post-65796 where I mentioned how to preview content for old versions, asked about guidelines and linked to this discussion.
See my comments in [/forums/l10n-forum/711380#post-65796] where I mentioned how to preview content for old versions, asked about guidelines and linked to this discussion.
It would be fine to define which versions we support and which we don't. For example, we can decide to only support Firefox 24 and newer. When the next ESR (v45) is released, we can drop support for anything older than 31.
It would be fine to define which versions we support and which we don't. For example, we can decide to only support Firefox 24 and newer. When the next ESR (v45) is released, we can drop support for anything older than 31.
{note}Note: Every six weeks we add support for the latest beta version of Firefox. At the same time we remove the oldest version from the selector but the old markup will still work. So, for example, if someone views an article with Firefox 19 they will see instructions for their version (see this thread to know which versions are no longer supported).{/note}
We should either update that thread or else update the How to use for article with information on which Firefox versions are still supported in KB articles.
The current Firefox ESR version available for download is 38 at present although Firefox 31 ESR versions are still being updated. Personally, I think that we should probably limit KB support (which versions are covered in KB articles) to the previous ESR version (31) and above ... which is currently what the version selector shows .... or, for simplicity sake, to the Firefox versions covered in the version selector.
The [[How to use for]] article includes this note:
{note}'''Note:''' Every six weeks we add support for the latest beta version of Firefox. At the same time we remove the oldest version from the selector but the old markup will still work. So, for example, if someone views an article with Firefox 19 they will see instructions for their version (see [/forums/knowledge-base-articles/708440 this thread] to know which versions are no longer supported).{/note}
We should either update that thread or else update the [[How to use for]] article with information on which Firefox versions are still supported in KB articles.
The current [http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/all.html Firefox ESR] version <sub>available for download</sub> is 38 at present <sub> although Firefox 31 ESR versions are still being updated</sub>. Personally, I think that we should probably limit KB support (which versions are covered in KB articles) to the previous ESR version (31) and above ... which is currently what the version selector shows .... <sub>or, for simplicity sake, to the Firefox versions covered in the version selector.</sub>
That's a good point. We could use it in general, but it may be good to keep pre-Australis content for a bit longer, because there are probably quite many users who insist on v28 (any analytics data about visitors' browser versions?).
That's a good point. We could use it in general, but it may be good to keep pre-Australis content for a bit longer, because there are probably quite many users who insist on v28 (any analytics data about visitors' browser versions?).
The How to use for article includes this note:
{note}Note: Every six weeks we add support for the latest beta version of Firefox. At the same time we remove the oldest version from the selector but the old markup will still work. So, for example, if someone views an article with Firefox 19 they will see instructions for their version (see this thread to know which versions are no longer supported).{/note}
We should either update that thread or else update the How to use for article with information on which Firefox versions are still supported in KB articles.
The current Firefox ESR version available for download is 38 at present although Firefox 31 ESR versions are still being updated. Personally, I think that we should probably limit KB support (which versions are covered in KB articles) to the previous ESR version (31) and above ... which is currently what the version selector shows .... or, for simplicity sake, to the Firefox versions covered in the version selector.
Fx31 is the previous ESR version and it's still the earliest Version currently shown in the versions selector. Fx 31esr is no longer being updated (a check for updates using fx31esr gets you fx38 now).
To Joni: When updating articles, should we continue to support the earliest Firefox versions shown in the version selector, currently Firefox 31 and above? Should we remove blocks of content for previous versions when editing an article (e.g., fx30 and below) to make it easier to maintain those articles?
''AliceWyman [[#post-65830|said]]''
<blockquote>
The [[How to use for]] article includes this note:
{note}'''Note:''' Every six weeks we add support for the latest beta version of Firefox. At the same time we remove the oldest version from the selector but the old markup will still work. So, for example, if someone views an article with Firefox 19 they will see instructions for their version (see [/forums/knowledge-base-articles/708440 this thread] to know which versions are no longer supported).{/note}
We should either update that thread or else update the [[How to use for]] article with information on which Firefox versions are still supported in KB articles.
The current [http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/all.html Firefox ESR] version <sub>available for download</sub> is 38 at present <sub> although Firefox 31 ESR versions are still being updated</sub>. Personally, I think that we should probably limit KB support (which versions are covered in KB articles) to the previous ESR version (31) and above ... which is currently what the version selector shows .... <sub>or, for simplicity sake, to the Firefox versions covered in the version selector.</sub>
</blockquote>
Fx31 is the previous ESR version and it's still the earliest Version currently shown in the versions selector. Fx 31esr is no longer being updated (a check for updates using fx31esr gets you fx38 now).
'''To Joni: ''' When updating articles, should we continue to support the earliest Firefox versions shown in the version selector, currently Firefox 31 and above? Should we remove blocks of content for previous versions when editing an article (e.g., fx30 and below) to make it easier to maintain those articles?
Note: This came up reviewing [[Re-enable add-ons that were disabled when updating Firefox]] (removing < fx29 content) and the articles that were spun off from [[Use the Search bar in Firefox]] (adding < fx34 content) .
I added "[Attn: Admin]" to the thread title.
The How to use for article includes this note:
{note}Note: Every six weeks we add support for the latest beta version of Firefox. At the same time we remove the oldest version from the selector but the old markup will still work. So, for example, if someone views an article with Firefox 19 they will see instructions for their version (see this thread to know which versions are no longer supported).{/note}
<snip>
Personally, I think that we should probably limit KB support (which versions are covered in KB articles) to the previous ESR version (31) and above ... which is currently what the version selector shows .... or, for simplicity sake, to the Firefox versions covered in the version selector.
I removed the note from the How to use "For" tags article. Besides linking to an outdated thread, the information about how versions are added or removed from the selector doesn't describe the current system. We still have Firefox 31 as the oldest Firefox version shown in the selector and, even thought Firefox 42 is the current beta version, the selector goes up to Firefox 43, which is the Developer Edition.
To Joni: When updating articles, should we continue to support the earliest Firefox versions shown in the version selector, currently Firefox 31 and above? Should we remove blocks of content for previous versions when editing an article (e.g., fx30 and below) to make it easier to maintain those articles?
Since there are no guidelines about which previous Firefox versions should be included in the KB articles I suppose it's up to the individual editor/reviewer to decide.
''AliceWyman [[#post-65830|said]]'' on June 29, 2015
<blockquote>
The [[How to use for]] article includes this note:
{note}'''Note:''' Every six weeks we add support for the latest beta version of Firefox. At the same time we remove the oldest version from the selector but the old markup will still work. So, for example, if someone views an article with Firefox 19 they will see instructions for their version (see [/forums/knowledge-base-articles/708440 this thread] to know which versions are no longer supported).{/note}
<snip>
Personally, I think that we should probably limit KB support (which versions are covered in KB articles) to the previous ESR version (31) and above ... which is currently what the version selector shows .... <sub>or, for simplicity sake, to the Firefox versions covered in the version selector.</sub>
</blockquote>
I removed the note from the [[How to use For]] article. Besides linking to an outdated thread, the information about how versions are added or removed from the selector doesn't describe the current system. We still have Firefox 31 as the oldest Firefox version shown in the selector and, even thought Firefox 42 is the current beta version, the selector goes up to Firefox 43, which is the [https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/developer/ Developer Edition].
''AliceWyman [[#post-66856|said]]''
<blockquote>
'''To Joni: ''' When updating articles, should we continue to support the earliest Firefox versions shown in the version selector, currently Firefox 31 and above? Should we remove blocks of content for previous versions when editing an article (e.g., fx30 and below) to make it easier to maintain those articles?
</blockquote>
Since there are no guidelines about which previous Firefox versions should be included in the KB articles I suppose it's up to the individual editor/reviewer to decide.
I'll ask Mark and Roland to let us know what our cutoff version is for support. I've been taking out the pre-ESR versions from the selector rather sporadically, but we'll need Mark and Roland's input so we can make an informed decision.
We don't need to support versions that are not in the selector. We should remove these older instructions as we revise articles, but we don't need to coordinate a dedicated project since those older instructions are invisible anyway.
Regarding version 43, we've added it to the selector because we needed to add v 43 text to the add-on signing article that needed to be reviewed by the engineering team. If someone views an article on Dev Edition or Nightly, they'll see content for the default version unless I turn on 43 in the selector.
I'll post another update after we've determined what our cutoff version is.
Hi all,
I'll ask Mark and Roland to let us know what our cutoff version is for support. I've been taking out the pre-ESR versions from the selector rather sporadically, but we'll need Mark and Roland's input so we can make an informed decision.
'''We don't need to support versions that are not in the selector.''' We should remove these older instructions as we revise articles, but we don't need to coordinate a dedicated project since those older instructions are invisible anyway.
Regarding version 43, we've added it to the selector because we needed to add v 43 text to the add-on signing article that needed to be reviewed by the engineering team. If someone views an article on Dev Edition or Nightly, they'll see content for the default version unless I turn on 43 in the selector.
I'll post another update after we've determined what our cutoff version is.
Hi all,
I'll ask Mark and Roland to let us know what our cutoff version is for support. I've been taking out the pre-ESR versions from the selector rather sporadically, but we'll need Mark and Roland's input so we can make an informed decision.
We don't need to support versions that are not in the selector. We should remove these older instructions as we revise articles, but we don't need to coordinate a dedicated project since those older instructions are invisible anyway.
Regarding version 43, we've added it to the selector because we needed to add v 43 text to the add-on signing article that needed to be reviewed by the engineering team. If someone views an article on Dev Edition or Nightly, they'll see content for the default version unless I turn on 43 in the selector.
I'll post another update after we've determined what our cutoff version is.
Thanks, Joni. I just saw this. I never got an email notification for your October 7, 2015 post (related bug: 1204515)
''Joni [[#post-66986|said]]''
<blockquote>
Hi all,
I'll ask Mark and Roland to let us know what our cutoff version is for support. I've been taking out the pre-ESR versions from the selector rather sporadically, but we'll need Mark and Roland's input so we can make an informed decision.
'''We don't need to support versions that are not in the selector.''' We should remove these older instructions as we revise articles, but we don't need to coordinate a dedicated project since those older instructions are invisible anyway.
Regarding version 43, we've added it to the selector because we needed to add v 43 text to the add-on signing article that needed to be reviewed by the engineering team. If someone views an article on Dev Edition or Nightly, they'll see content for the default version unless I turn on 43 in the selector.
I'll post another update after we've determined what our cutoff version is.
</blockquote>
Thanks, Joni. I just saw this. I never got an email notification for your October 7, 2015 post (related bug: [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1204515 1204515])
I've received feedback from Mark and Roland. We need to keep content only for:
The ESR version of Firefox. Currently, it's version 38. Each time a new ESR comes out, we support the previous one for 12 weeks before dropping support.
Versions that came before the latest ESR.
Right now, we're supporting versions 38-42.
If any of you want to make a dedicated project out of pruning unsupported content, feel free, but please don't mark those changes for L10N.
Otherwise, we can just clean up this content as we make other revisions.
I've received feedback from Mark and Roland. We need to keep content only for:
#The ESR version of Firefox. Currently, it's version 38. Each time a new ESR comes out, we support the previous one for 12 weeks before dropping support.
#Versions that came before the latest ESR.
Right now, we're supporting versions 38-42.
If any of you want to make a dedicated project out of pruning unsupported content, feel free, but please don't mark those changes for L10N.
Otherwise, we can just clean up this content as we make other revisions.
I've received feedback from Mark and Roland. We need to keep content only for:
The ESR version of Firefox. Currently, it's version 38. Each time a new ESR comes out, we support the previous one for 12 weeks before dropping support.
Versions that came before the latest ESR.
Right now, we're supporting versions 38-42.
If any of you want to make a dedicated project out of pruning unsupported content, feel free, but please don't mark those changes for L10N.
Otherwise, we can just clean up this content as we make other revisions.
''Joni [[#post-67193|said]]''
<blockquote>
I've received feedback from Mark and Roland. We need to keep content only for:
#The ESR version of Firefox. Currently, it's version 38. Each time a new ESR comes out, we support the previous one for 12 weeks before dropping support.
#Versions that came before the latest ESR.
Right now, we're supporting versions 38-42.
If any of you want to make a dedicated project out of pruning unsupported content, feel free, but please don't mark those changes for L10N.
Otherwise, we can just clean up this content as we make other revisions.
</blockquote>
The version picker still goes back to Firefox 38.
Firefox 45.0 and Firefox 45.0esr were both released in March 2016 according to
https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/45.0/releasenotes/
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/45.0esr/releasenotes/
Isn't it time we stop supporting Firefox 38-44?
''Joni [[#post-67193|said]]''
<blockquote>
I've received feedback from Mark and Roland. We need to keep content only for:
#The ESR version of Firefox. <snip>. Each time a new ESR comes out, we support the previous one for 12 weeks before dropping support.
#Versions that came before the latest ESR. <snip>
</blockquote>
The version picker still goes back to Firefox 45. Shouldn't we only be supporting Firefox 52 and above?
Firefox 52 and 52 ESR were both released March 7, 2017 according to
https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/52.0esr/releasenotes/
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/52.0/releasenotes/
Hmm. Now the version picker only shows 55-58. Looks like someone forgot about Firefox 52 ESR. I started a new thread, https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/forums/knowledge-base-articles/712759 [Attn Admin - Joni] Version picker changed to only include Firefox 55-58. What about 52 ESR?
I've received feedback from Mark and Roland. We need to keep content only for:
The ESR version of Firefox. <snip> Each time a new ESR comes out, we support the previous one for 12 weeks before dropping support.
Versions that came before the latest ESR.
Firefox 78.0 esr was released 2020-06-30 and the final 68.12esr release was 2020-08-25 [1]. Can we stop supporting 68esr and remove versions 68-77 from the version picker?
I filed Bug 1676647 Opened 2020-11-11 09:03 EST
Remove versions 68-77 from the Firefox version picker
''Joni [[#post-67193|said]]''
<blockquote>
I've received feedback from Mark and Roland. We need to keep content only for:
#The ESR version of Firefox. <snip> Each time a new ESR comes out, we support the previous one for 12 weeks before dropping support.
#Versions that came before the latest ESR.
</blockquote>
Firefox 78.0 esr was released 2020-06-30 and the final 68.12esr release was 2020-08-25 [1]. Can we stop supporting 68esr and remove versions 68-77 from the version picker?
[1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/Calendar#Past_branch_dates
I filed [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1676647 Bug 1676647] Opened 2020-11-11 09:03 EST
Remove versions 68-77 from the Firefox version picker
I just sent a PM to Abby and Lucas with the following content:
----
I added separate headings to the [[Import Bookmarks from an HTML file]] article ('''Import bookmarks from the Library window''' that works for all versions and '''Import bookmarks from Firefox Settings''' that only works for fx115+) because We still support older versions of Firefox, including 102esr. See https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/forums/knowledge-base-articles/711388#post-67193 on what versions we support (we should probably document this somewhere, maybe in [[Article review and approval guidelines]])
New bug filed:
Bug 1876490 - Remove versions 102-114 from the Firefox "Customize this article" version picker
New bug filed:
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1876490 Bug 1876490] - Remove versions 102-114 from the Firefox "Customize this article" version picker
New article by Lucas, approved by Abby March 1, 2024:
Firefox version support policy for Knowledge Base content
Revision comment:
Following our February team discussion, we're presenting the first draft of the Version Support Policy article.
New article by Lucas, approved by Abby March 1, 2024:
[[Firefox version support policy for Knowledge Base content]]
Revision comment:
Following our February team discussion, we're presenting the first draft of the Version Support Policy article.
