On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 09:08:16PM +0100, Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 05:38:58PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 11:56:02AM +0100, Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > A starting point would be packages of iceweasel and iceape that are ready > > > to > > > migrate to etch... I personally prefer having working iceweasel and iceape > > > packages in etch soon... > > > > > > It will probably depend on the 'minor' functional changes if we prefer > > > the new > > > upstream or not, but that's only important after having the packages in > > > etch > > > IMHO... > > > > It's also important to have the packages in etch with the security > > fixes. I have absolutely no idea how much of the upstream changes are > > not security updates, maybe Alex could enlighten us on that, and if Alex > > doesn't know, it will take time to know what are and what are not security > > fixes. > > I still don't get why you raise this issue. RMs have not yet complained > about our upload procedures. We did the same for sarge ... aka > uploading new upstreams as long as release was not yet out. So why > don't we do the same and start dicussing if RMs complain?
etch is frozen and the current policy is supposed to be no new upstream unless authorized. Or did I misunderstand the freeze ? > anyway ... here the statistics: ... there are a total of 120 bugs > fixed in 1.8.0.9 ... from which are about 80 bugs appear security or > crasher bugs ... the other fourty are either related to those or look > rather non-intrusive. > > But please ... upload new upstream version. Starting security support > before we actually release is just stupid and a waste of my time. If you > want me to upload iceape or xulrunner, let me know. Well, if RMs are not opposed to the idea, I will upload them in a few days. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
