On Nov 22, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Ted Mielczarek wrote: > On 11/21/2013 4:56 PM, John O'Duinn wrote: >> 6) If a developer lands a patch that works on 10.9, but it fails somehow >> on 10.7 or 10.8, it is unlikely that we would back out the fix, and we >> would instead tell users to upgrade to 10.9 anyways, for the security > fixes.
> This seems to go against our historical policy. While it's true that we > might not back a patch out for 10.7/10.8 failures (since we won't have > automated test coverage), if they're still supported platforms then we > would still look to fix the bug. That might require backing a patch out > or landing a new fix. I don't think we need to over-rotate on this, this > is no different than any of the myriad of regressions or bugs we have > reported by users with software configurations different than what we're > able to run tests on. > > I would instead simply say "10.7 and 10.8 will remain supported OSes, > and bugs affecting only those platforms will be considered and > prioritized as necessary". It sounds a little weasely when I write it > that way, but I don't think we should WONTFIX bugs just because they're > on a supported platform without test coverage, we'd simply treat them as > we would any other bug a user reports: something we ought to fix, > prioritized as is seen fit by developers. I agree - we have not decided to mark 10.7 or 10.8 as tier 2 or otherwise less supported. I don't mind assuming that 10.6/10.9 tests oughta catch most of the problems, but if they miss one and we break 10.7/10.8, I'd expect us to find a solution for that, or back out if the bustage is significant and not easily fixable. J --- Johnathan Nightingale VP Firefox @johnath _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
