On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 17:27:43 +0200, drago01 <drag...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Bruno Wolff III <br...@wolff.to> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 17:01:02 +0200, > > Tomas Mraz <tm...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> I say that the example of Webkit should be removed because if it is not > >> possible to backport the security patch and due to the version update > >> Midori has to be updated to a new version regardless of the changes of > >> user experience. The part of the example "judgement call based on how > >> intrusive the changes are" does not make any sense. We just cannot keep > >> the old insecure version regardless on how intrusive the changes are. > > > > Security isn't binary. It may be that a security update addresses an issue > > that can not happen in normal cases. It might be reasonable to just document > > the cases where there is a problem so as to warn people not to do that. > > NO, security issues ought to be *fixed* not just documented.
All bugs ought to be fixed. That doesn't mean that if the cost to fix is high, other alternatives aren't acceptible. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
