On 11/22/2013, 3:44 PM, Johnathan Nightingale wrote: > On Nov 22, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Ted Mielczarek wrote: > >> On 11/21/2013 4:56 PM, John O'Duinn wrote: >>> 6) If a developer lands a patch that works on 10.9, but it fails somehow >>> on 10.7 or 10.8, it is unlikely that we would back out the fix, and we >>> would instead tell users to upgrade to 10.9 anyways, for the security >> fixes. > >> This seems to go against our historical policy. While it's true that we >> might not back a patch out for 10.7/10.8 failures (since we won't have >> automated test coverage), if they're still supported platforms then we >> would still look to fix the bug. That might require backing a patch out >> or landing a new fix. I don't think we need to over-rotate on this, this >> is no different than any of the myriad of regressions or bugs we have >> reported by users with software configurations different than what we're >> able to run tests on. >> >> I would instead simply say "10.7 and 10.8 will remain supported OSes, >> and bugs affecting only those platforms will be considered and >> prioritized as necessary". It sounds a little weasely when I write it >> that way, but I don't think we should WONTFIX bugs just because they're >> on a supported platform without test coverage, we'd simply treat them as >> we would any other bug a user reports: something we ought to fix, >> prioritized as is seen fit by developers. > > > I agree - we have not decided to mark 10.7 or 10.8 as tier 2 or otherwise > less supported. I don't mind assuming that 10.6/10.9 tests oughta catch most > of the problems, but if they miss one and we break 10.7/10.8, I'd expect us > to find a solution for that, or back out if the bustage is significant and > not easily fixable. > > J > > --- > Johnathan Nightingale > VP Firefox > @johnath >
Thanks Jonathan. Yes, it makes sense to me that approach. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
