On 8/07/2015 1:54 PM, »Q« wrote:
In <news:2o-dnvmjkvvwdghinz2dnuu7-lwdn...@mozilla.org>,
Paul Bergsagel <pbergsa...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Does SeaMonkey benefit, in the long run, with such a rapid
update schedule? If SeaMonkey adopted a less frequent update
schedule would the net benefits be greater than if SeaMonkey
continued with the current rapid update schedule?
Since the last SeaMonkey release, there have been over 40 MFSAs, many
of them critical. IMO (and it's only that) if SM decided out of policy
*not* to issue security updates in a timely manner, that would mark
the death of the project.
Then again, there's a good argument to be made that:
- rapid development and release cycles open as many new security holes
as they close
- perhaps it's a better use of scarce resources to focus on hardening
code in ways that reduce the number of future holes
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
