Bruno Wolff III
bruno at wolff.to
Wed Sep 22 16:31:05 UTC 2010
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 17:27:43 +0200,
drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno at wolff.to> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 17:01:02 +0200,
> > Tomas Mraz <tmraz at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> I say that the example of Webkit should be removed because if it is not
> >> possible to backport the security patch and due to the version update
> >> Midori has to be updated to a new version regardless of the changes of
> >> user experience. The part of the example "judgement call based on how
> >> intrusive the changes are" does not make any sense. We just cannot keep
> >> the old insecure version regardless on how intrusive the changes are.
> > Security isn't binary. It may be that a security update addresses an issue
> > that can not happen in normal cases. It might be reasonable to just document
> > the cases where there is a problem so as to warn people not to do that.
> NO, security issues ought to be *fixed* not just documented.
All bugs ought to be fixed. That doesn't mean that if the cost to fix is high,
other alternatives aren't acceptible.
More information about the devel