| 1 |
On 12:10 Wed 21 Sep 2011, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> Maybe we need to rethink the definition of "stable" in these |
| 3 |
> situations. I think it still doesn't hurt to have some kind of QA |
| 4 |
> cycle internally for something like firefox. Plus at least with |
| 5 |
> firefox the old versions don't suddenly stop working/etc, assuming |
| 6 |
> they still get upstream security notices. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I agree that these new 'channel' concepts are not very compatible with |
| 9 |
out stable/testing tree model and security stabilizations. Every single |
| 10 |
stabilization (except the first) of www-client/chromium for instance is |
| 11 |
a security stabilization. Chromium goes stable early and with the 'it's |
| 12 |
a security-bug, small problems can be ingored'-hat on. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The reason that the same is not true for firefox is kind of stupid: They |
| 15 |
provide security updates for their legacy version. So in this case all |
| 16 |
the bugs need to be considered and we don't stable version 6, 7, ... in |
| 17 |
a timely manner. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Cheers, |
| 20 |
Thomas |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Thomas Kahle |
| 24 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomka/ |
Archives