© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
0e1f616
(Get the code!)
From IRC discussion:
10:31 < jdstrand> can someone take a look at the oxide 1.5 FFe? (bug #1425599)
10:31 < ubot93> bug 1425599 in oxide-qt (Ubuntu) "[FFE] oxide 1.5" [Undecided,New] https:/
10:31 < jdstrand> oSoMoN and chrisccoulson can speak to the actual changes
10:33 < jdstrand> but oxide is in a weird area wrt to this FFe. we plan to push this to stable releases because it is a security update. however, there are some features in it that are for important phone bugs
10:34 < jdstrand> in other words, oxide was specifically created to address security issues, fix bugs and implement features to enhance the phone (ie, it uses the firefox model), yet it is blocked on FFe
10:34 < jdstrand> seems we wouldn't block firefox-- we would just upload it
10:37 < jdstrand> I'm not sure that it helps, but we discussed that we will pursue an MRE for oxide after vivid releases since it is a lot like firefox, and firefox has one
10:44 < ogra_> why does it need an FFe at all ?
10:44 < ogra_> given it is a rolling package across all releases anyway
10:54 < jdstrand> ogra_: right
10:55 < jdstrand> I'm not sure why oSoMoN was advised to file one
10:55 < jdstrand> I think sil2100 may have requested it, but not sure where this was discussed in terms of formal processes (if at all)
10:56 < oSoMoN> Mirv initially told me I’d need to file an FFe
10:57 < sil2100> I wasn't aware of any exceptions, so FFe was the safest bet - and if someone from the release team would comment that we don't need those, well, we wouldn't request it anymore ;)
10:57 < sil2100> I understand all the rationale, it's just that since it's a release-team decision I wanted to have some confirmation from their side
10:58 < ogra_> sil2100, well, browsers are generally rolling anyway
11:01 < jdstrand> right, well, the argument is out there for the release team to comment. we'll pursue a MRE to kinda cement the idea for stable releases
12:07 < infinity> jdstrand: I take it as a given that firefox, chromium, and oxide don't require FFes