On 12:10 Wed 21 Sep 2011, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Maybe we need to rethink the definition of "stable" in these
> situations.  I think it still doesn't hurt to have some kind of QA
> cycle internally for something like firefox.  Plus at least with
> firefox the old versions don't suddenly stop working/etc, assuming
> they still get upstream security notices.

I agree that these new 'channel' concepts are not very compatible with
out stable/testing tree model and security stabilizations.  Every single
stabilization (except the first) of www-client/chromium for instance is
a security stabilization.  Chromium goes stable early and with the 'it's
a security-bug, small problems can be ingored'-hat on.

The reason that the same is not true for firefox is kind of stupid: They
provide security updates for their legacy version.  So in this case all
the bugs need to be considered and we don't stable version 6, 7, ...  in
a timely manner.

Cheers,
Thomas

-- 
Thomas Kahle 
http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomka/