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/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
