On 15/07/13 14:57, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
Or it means that we need to be willing to issue dot-releases to update
these items. We're pretty nimble with the desktop release cycle already.
We should definitely measure this tradeoff before doing a bunch of
engineering on this. As I understand
On 12/07/13 21:12, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
Would such an update increment the version number? I suspect you'd
want to be able to easily determine if an update has been applied, and
having to distinguish e.g. Firefox 30 without update 1 vs. Firefox
30 with update 1 could be annoying (and
On 13/07/13 00:36, Clint Talbert wrote:
This is all good stuff, and I want to support us being nimble. We also
need to balance that against security and quality in our builds. We go
through the release process for a reason, and we exert the energy to QA
these builds and ensure we can update
On 07/12/13 05:37 PM, Robert Strong wrote:
On 7/12/2013 1:12 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Gervase Markham g...@mozilla.org
wrote:
We keep hitting cases where we would like Firefoxes in the field to have
some data updated using a process which is much lighter
On 7/15/2013 9:30 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
On 13/07/13 00:36, Clint Talbert wrote:
This is all good stuff, and I want to support us being nimble. We also
need to balance that against security and quality in our builds. We go
through the release process for a reason, and we exert the energy to
We keep hitting cases where we would like Firefoxes in the field to have
some data updated using a process which is much lighter in expended
effort than shipping a security release. Here are some examples of the
data Firefox stores that I know of which might benefit from this:
- The Public Suffix
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Gervase Markham g...@mozilla.org wrote:
We keep hitting cases where we would like Firefoxes in the field to have
some data updated using a process which is much lighter in expended
effort than shipping a security release.
Would such an update increment the
On 12/07/13 18:20, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
I think the general concept of making more of our lists be dynamic is
sound, but I'm very skeptical of the technical solution that you appear
to be outlining.
The technical solution was 3 minutes on the back of an envelope. Feel
free to tear it apart
On 7/12/2013 1:12 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Gervase Markham g...@mozilla.org wrote:
We keep hitting cases where we would like Firefoxes in the field to have
some data updated using a process which is much lighter in expended
effort than shipping a security
On 7/12/2013 9:49 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
We keep hitting cases where we would like Firefoxes in the field to have
some data updated using a process which is much lighter in expended
effort than shipping a security release. Here are some examples of the
data Firefox stores that I know of
Couldn't the add-on hotfix approach be used for some of these items?
- Original Message -
On 12/07/13 18:20, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
I think the general concept of making more of our lists be dynamic is
sound, but I'm very skeptical of the technical solution that you appear
to
11 matches
Mail list logo
