On 06/09/2014 09:50 AM, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Yan Zhu writes: > >> Wouldn't this also be solved by making the ruleset versions sub-versions >> of the releases? >> >> ex: 4.0development.16.0 == first ruleset release corresponding to >> 4.0development.16 > > Does that mean that you can't update to a new ruleset release without > first updating to the corresponding extension release version? >
We decided in IRC last week that this would be the desired default behavior. In general, it would be difficult to guarantee that a new ruleset version is compatible with *all* previous extension versions. Ex: we introduce a new XML property, "hasKeyPins", or change the XML ruleset structure in a way that is not backwards-compatible past the previous extension release.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ HTTPS-Everywhere mailing list [email protected] https://lists.eff.org/mailman/listinfo/https-everywhere
