On Sun, 2015-11-22 at 15:50 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> writes: > > On Sun, 2015-11-22 at 14:30 +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > > The stable releases are what most users want to use OpenStack. Sid / > > > Testing is too disruptive for a production environment. The Icehouse > > > version in Stable is too old, and has lost support from upstream nearly > > > a year ago. > > [...] > > > > So why was it ever considered suitable for a stable release? > > Why shouldn't it be included in stable? > > We also have web browsers in stable that are unsupported (everything > except iceweasel and chromium) or applications like the evolution mail > program or the amarok music player which use webkit-based HTML widget to > display HTML from untrusted sources, but the HTML widgets have no > security support. > > Other examples mentioned in the release notes include node.js or mediawiki. I would prefer that all those packages were excluded from stable releases. (Where HTML widgets are used to display remote content in applications that aren't primarily browsers, we would need to provide stubs so they don't entirely break.) OpenStack isn't listed in those release notes, anyway. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Life would be so much easier if we could look at the source code.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part