Bug#622371: transition: webkit

[Kumar Appaiah <a.kumar@alumni.iitm.ac.in>]

Hi.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 09:05:06AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > Right. Are you deliberately trying to stall all development, or does
> > it just appear that way?
> 
> I fail to see how proposing a more measured approach to testing
> security for two very problematic packages qualifies as stalling all
> development.
> 
> Yes, it delays newer versions of those packages and their dependencies
> for a while, but I don't see how that is a real problem.  The transition
> is still going to happen. Testing of those packages is still going to
> happen. A year is a very long time.  I fail to see why two years must
> be viewed as a requirement.
> 
> "Stall" is the wrong kind of framing since that connotes that some kind
> of catastrophe (plane crash) is about to happen.

To the best of my understanding, testing security is provided on a
best case basis. Given that testing is not as secure, why not just
provide a lower priority to webkit from the testing security
perspective while allowing the newer version to get more exposure
before the next release, rather than introduce the transition at the
end?

Apologies in advance for anything wrong I may have said. :-)

Kumar
-- 
Kumar Appaiah