[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: chromium not in Squeeze: a bit of communication needed?

On 09/15/2010 08:23 PM, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> I think it's easy to see if we will have to accept a new major release of
> Chromium in Squeeze (after its release): Would you be able to backport any
> fix from 6.x to 3.x? If they keep releasing every 3 months, you'll have to
> deal with a more distant release.
> Their official blog [3] has an interesting post about how they plan to
> release future stable versions. And, quite frankly, it doesn't look brilliant.
> [3] http://blog.chromium.org/2010/07/release-early-release-often.html
> Furthermore, I don't see any page speaking about support of former stable
> releases. So, I assume there is none. The newest is always the only one
> “supported”.
> If we consider accepting Chromium in Squeeze, we should be ready to
> accept new big dumps of Chromium (not only bugfixes… because, that's
> not how they used to release) without even looking at the diff. If we do
> so, we should leave a remark about how the security support and updates
> are handled for Chromium in Squeeze in the Release Notes (stating clearly
> that Chromium is an exception and why). If we're going to EOL Chromium
> during Squeeze's lifecycle (and I believe it will happen quite soon), then
> why should we accept it in Squeeze at all?

We already know that they haven't a LTS.
I never wrote I intend to propose a new major release in Squeeze (after
its release).
I wrote many times that I volunteer to support and backport security
patches, like Mike will do with iceweasel/xulrunner (as far as I know
official security support for firefox 3.5.x is going to be terminated)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: