On 20 February 2013 17:27, Les Mikesell <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Stephen Connolly > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> Usually the point of LTS-type releases is that the changes get some > >> testing before being backported or the release is advanced to include > >> them so that they are well understood and predictable. > > > > > > My understanding is that the trigger that resulted in this hole being > found > > required an urgent fix. > > Is any risk so great that it exceeds pushing an untested fix? My understanding is that it was tested. > And if > it was tested in typical scenarios, couldn't the fact that it _will > break_ your working system have been clearly documented so people > could plan their update timing better? I think there is a valid point, and I raised that point with KK when I first saw the changelog. > I'm not complaining about the > decision to make the change. I just don't see why the side effects > had to be a surprise. > They were hinted at in the security advisory... I do agree that there could have been better wording for that though > > -- > Les Mikesell > [email protected] > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Jenkins Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
