IIRC, Sync itself still has upgrade-required messaging — if we send a 200/404/513 with soft-eol or hard-eol, the device should tell the user that they need to upgrade to continue syncing.
It might be worth flipping that to soft-eol for the pre-45 population — which we can identify via UA — and see if they upgrade to shift that 98.13% up a little bit. On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Alex Davis <ada...@mozilla.com> wrote: > Based on Leif's query, if we supported back to 45, we'd cover 98.13% of > the users active in the last 7 days. > https://sql.telemetry.mozilla.org/queries/36264#97308 > > If we were more aggressive and did 52, we'd cover 87.7% of users... which > seems *too* aggressive but perhaps we can see if we can try to nudge > people to upgrade first. > > > > -- > Alex Davis // Mountain View > Product Manager // FxA & Sync > (415) 769-9247 > IRC & Slack: adavis > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Ryan Kelly <rfke...@mozilla.com> wrote: > >> On 15 September 2017 at 05:46, Mark Hammond <mhamm...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> >>> Another way to look at this is: at some point, Mozilla makes a decision >>> that even the most serious security vulnerability which can cause >>> significant harm to users will not be fixed in some older versions. I >>> find it difficult to justify that the FxA team should be held to a >>> higher standard - and in some cases, it's even possible that having FxA >>> work on such older, vulnerable Firefoxes could potentially cause *more* >>> harm to the user. >>> >> >> I strongly support this as a lower-bound on our ambitions here. Mark, is >> there a concrete policy based around ESR etc for these decisions? >> >> >> Ryan >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Dev-fxacct mailing list > Dev-fxacct@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxacct > >
_______________________________________________ Dev-fxacct mailing list Dev-fxacct@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxacct
