Based on Leif's query, if we supported back to 45, we'd cover 98.13% of the users active in the last 7 days. https://sql.telemetry.mozilla.org/queries/36264#97308
If we were more aggressive and did 52, we'd cover 87.7% of users... which seems *too* aggressive but perhaps we can see if we can try to nudge people to upgrade first. -- Alex Davis // Mountain View Product Manager // FxA & Sync (415) 769-9247 IRC & Slack: adavis On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Ryan Kelly <[email protected]> wrote: > On 15 September 2017 at 05:46, Mark Hammond <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Another way to look at this is: at some point, Mozilla makes a decision >> that even the most serious security vulnerability which can cause >> significant harm to users will not be fixed in some older versions. I >> find it difficult to justify that the FxA team should be held to a >> higher standard - and in some cases, it's even possible that having FxA >> work on such older, vulnerable Firefoxes could potentially cause *more* >> harm to the user. >> > > I strongly support this as a lower-bound on our ambitions here. Mark, is > there a concrete policy based around ESR etc for these decisions? > > > Ryan >
_______________________________________________ Dev-fxacct mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxacct
