On 11/22/2013, 12:29 PM, Ted Mielczarek wrote: > > I think this plan is generally sound. Users are moving en-masse to 10.9 > with the free update, so we should focus our resources there, and keep > 10.6 around to support those users that can't update for hardware > reasons. I just have one point of contention with what you've written. > > 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. > > -Ted > >
Yes, this is better worded. Thanks ted. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
