Mark Rosenstand wrote:
On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 19:26 -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> On 10/1/06, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
>> I think the patch approval process can also be a constraint
>> on the Fedora Legacy team. Currently, Legacy is simply upgrading rather than
> Not familiar with the details on the differences between upgrading vs.
> backporting. Although I would have assumed upgrading was better.
Legacy is supposed to be "bugfixes only" - no? (If everything is just
updated, how is it different from the current releases?)
It is more risky to backport them instead of taking the new versions
wholesale. Several of the patches for the critical fixes involve a
re-architecture of the way the entire DOM/JS model is handled
internally. This means MASSIVE changes which took several architects
months to perfect, and it STILL caused 10-20 regressions.
Even RHEL went the route of taking the new versions wholesale. On *my*
recommendation. Not because of Mozilla restrictions, but because it
makes more sense. Put another way: if taking new versions wholesale is
deemed unacceptable, have fun doing the backports because I'd probably
quit. I did them while they were feasible to do and committed them
upstream and got them approved. They just stopped becoming feasible to