On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 17:27:43 +0200,
drago01 <drago01(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Bruno Wolff III
<bruno(a)wolff.to> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 17:01:02 +0200,
> Tomas Mraz <tmraz(a)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.