[tbb-dev] Tor Browser uplift tracker
mcs at pearlcrescent.com
Tue Jan 30 16:16:56 UTC 2018
On 1/29/18 6:47 AM, Georg Koppen wrote:
> Mcs/brade: I might have got some of your update or profile dir related
> patches wrong. Please have a look especially at those if you have some time.
See my comments below.
> 10) #13252: I am inclined to say "no uplift" as this patch only exists
> because we need to ship an own bundle (which we don't want to do if we
> are done with our Firefox fork).
Kathy and I agree this one should be "no uplift."
> 11) #13379: probably "no uplift" (for now at least). At any rate we'd
> need to investigate first what we still need to carry over to ESR 60
> here, given that https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1105689
> got fixed.
Agreed on "no uplift" but note that in 1105689 Mozilla went with SHA384
instead of SHA512 (it seems there are security reasons for that choice).
We could switch to SHA384 but we will need to think through the
> 13) #18912: seems worth trying to uplift.
> 14) #19121: it seems this is WONTFIX for Mozilla right now? I guess we
> keep it and make our argument later again? Or we argue along the lines
> of 10) and bite the bullet.
This is the one we discussed yesterday.
> 15) #18900: "uplift" according to
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1159090#c4 I guess.
Kathy and I agree this should be uplifted but the patch may need some
work (I think what we did regresses 1159090).
> 16) #11641: "no uplift", the reasoning is the same as in 10).
> 17) #9173: I am not sure but after skimming over it, it seems like "no
> uplift" with reasoning like in 10)?
Agreed — no uplift.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the tbb-dev