| 1 |
On Wednesday, 09. January 2008 19:45:38 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> > > Then the one particular part of 3.5.5 that's affected gets fixed |
| 3 |
> > > and priority keyworded. |
| 4 |
> > So you suggest that mips keeps doing nothing and expect others to |
| 5 |
> > work *more* in exchange for that? |
| 6 |
> Well, most users will simply ignore or postpone the mass upgrade, |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
So far so good. If users postpone it, that's entirely their |
| 9 |
responsibility. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> so yes. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
That's not so good, though, and where we really disagree. Thanks for the |
| 14 |
straight answer, though. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
In my book, it's not acceptable to not do one's job properly and by that |
| 17 |
force others to do more. You basically told me the same when I suggested |
| 18 |
likewise measures against mips. :-) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The only difference being that we supported KDE 3.5.5 for a long time and |
| 21 |
gave mips months to get up to speed again. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> Forcing a mass upgrade is rarely if ever the correct solution to |
| 24 |
> any security issue. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I absolutely agree. This, IMO, is such a case, though. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Best regards, Wulf |
Archives