On 8/07/2015 1:54 PM, »Q« wrote:
In <news:[email protected]>,
Paul Bergsagel <[email protected]> wrote:
Does SeaMonkey benefit, in the long run, with such a rapid
update schedule? If SeaMonkey adopted a less frequent update
schedule would the net benefits be greater than if SeaMonkey
continued with the current rapid update schedule?
Since the last SeaMonkey release, there have been over 40 MFSAs, many
of them critical. IMO (and it's only that) if SM decided out of policy
*not* to issue security updates in a timely manner, that would mark
the death of the project.
Hear, Hear!! If I've got a safe, secure Suite, would I care if I only
got a "Bells and Whistles" update every six months or so?? Not a
problem. My SM looks and feels much the same as NC 4.7, or earlier.
(This being cross-posted reminds me I still waiting on the "Mark
Cross-posts as Read" bugzilla to be fixed, Bug 43278. Worked in NC up
till about 4.7 but then not.)
--
Daniel
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.32 Build identifier: 20141218225909
or
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.33 Build identifier: 20150215202114
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
