On 09/15/2010 08:23 PM, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: > I think it's easy to see if we will have to accept a new major release of > Chromium in Squeeze (after its release): Would you be able to backport any > fix from 6.x to 3.x? If they keep releasing every 3 months, you'll have to > deal with a more distant release. > > Their official blog [3] has an interesting post about how they plan to > release future stable versions. And, quite frankly, it doesn't look brilliant. > > [3] http://blog.chromium.org/2010/07/release-early-release-often.html > > Furthermore, I don't see any page speaking about support of former stable > releases. So, I assume there is none. The newest is always the only one > “supported”. > > If we consider accepting Chromium in Squeeze, we should be ready to > accept new big dumps of Chromium (not only bugfixes… because, that's > not how they used to release) without even looking at the diff. If we do > so, we should leave a remark about how the security support and updates > are handled for Chromium in Squeeze in the Release Notes (stating clearly > that Chromium is an exception and why). If we're going to EOL Chromium > during Squeeze's lifecycle (and I believe it will happen quite soon), then > why should we accept it in Squeeze at all?
We already know that they haven't a LTS. I never wrote I intend to propose a new major release in Squeeze (after its release). I wrote many times that I volunteer to support and backport security patches, like Mike will do with iceweasel/xulrunner (as far as I know official security support for firefox 3.5.x is going to be terminated) Cheers, Giuseppe.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
