[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: XULRunner - will be or won't be?

On 6/28/07, Christopher Aillon <caillon redhat com> wrote:
This is not a big enough change to warrant that IMO though.  It won't be
any more newsworthy than any other firefox release.

Every firefox release is newsworthy, don't be so modest.  How many
applications do firefox security updates end up breaking through
library dependencies? End-users definitely notice when a firefox
updates go out.... its always big news.

More seriously, the above quoted text gets to the heart of the problem
with a 'features' documentation policy.  At the end of the day, the
group of people who define something as feature-worthy are going to
need to be the ones who keep the feature-level text updated.  If a
maintainer doesn't 'see' this as feature worthy then expecting the
maintainer to keep that additional text updated will cause some

Personally I disagree with you about xulrunner. Several application
packages which currently depend on libraries inside firefox are going
to be positively impacted by the inclusion of xulrunner.  Enough of
them to make xulrunner a big enough deal to make a little fuss over in
the next fedora release from an end-user perspective.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]