Kumar Appaiah wrote: > Hi. > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 09:05:06AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > Steve McIntyre wrote: > > > Right. Are you deliberately trying to stall all development, or does > > > it just appear that way? > > > > I fail to see how proposing a more measured approach to testing > > security for two very problematic packages qualifies as stalling all > > development. > > > > Yes, it delays newer versions of those packages and their dependencies > > for a while, but I don't see how that is a real problem. The transition > > is still going to happen. Testing of those packages is still going to > > happen. A year is a very long time. I fail to see why two years must > > be viewed as a requirement. > > > > "Stall" is the wrong kind of framing since that connotes that some kind > > of catastrophe (plane crash) is about to happen. > > To the best of my understanding, testing security is provided on a > best case basis. Given that testing is not as secure, why not just > provide a lower priority to webkit from the testing security > perspective while allowing the newer version to get more exposure > before the next release, rather than introduce the transition at the > end?
That is what will end up happening as soon as this transition starts. I will only have enough time to work on stable security updates. My suggestion is not to move the transition to the end, but instead to the middle. I don't see why it has to be at the start. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
