1.5.0.x and l10n check-ins still not settling
Axel Hecht
I just wanted to post a more detailed explanation on why I run errand
and cancel approval-l10n requests for 1.5.0.x.
Fact is, we have recently found out that there are different
expectations on how that should work between me, QA and security. That
is nothing that cannot be solved, but we're lacking some communication
on the topic, which we'll hopefully get to end of this month.
Once I have a better idea on how what can when land on a security
branch, I'll update you with a post here.
Right now, I'm just cleaning up the queue. (Well, ok, I - some, which,
independent of what we come up with, are highly unlikely to make it anyway)
Axel
"Andrés G. Aragoneses"
Hello Axel. Just a question that is related with this topic:
It seems that it's not clear at all if this kind of corrections are
intended to be landed on the 1.5.x branch or not.
Firstly, in a comment on bug #316781 [1] (which is not a security or
critical bug) you say:
"Please re-request approval for 1.5.1 once we have 1.5 out the door,
we'd likely want to take it then."
And, on the other hand, you cancel all approvals now and in other bug
(#323207 [2]) you use this argument:
"I don't think this is security release material."
Please, state or not if this kind of mispelling/cosmetical fixes are
intended to be submitted and, if they are not to, just tell us to focus
on the trunk.
Thanks very much,
Andrés G. Aragoneses [ knocte ]
--
[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=316781
[2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=323207
Axel Hecht
After some recent phone calls with dveditz, I think that we're not going
to take cosmetics on the x.x.0.x releases. IIRC, I did some minor
difference in es-ES, as one of the cosmetics was actually a security
dialog, and there may have been hidden text that is required to
understand what that dialog does. Thus I just unset the request there,
while a-'ing the cosmetics at other places.
Does that answer your question?
Axel