In <news:mailman.1932.1436376898.14172.support-seamon...@lists.mozilla.org>, Miles Fidelman <mfidel...@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
> 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 I disagree about there being a good case for that. In SeaMonkey's case, though, falling behind Gecko releases guarantees known security issues, and SeaMonkey can't change Gecko's release schedules. _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
