Bug 1536227 Comment 29 Edit History

Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.

Original comment by
on 
(In reply to Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM] from comment #26)
> Please nominate this for Beta and ESR68 approval when you get a chance.

This patch is somewhat speculative. There was a very high correlation with the third party dll in question, but we can't know for certain that this particular dll was causing them. Therefore, I think it makes sense to get this into beta and observe for a while before uplifting to 68. Does this seem reasonable?

(In reply to Al Billings [:abillings] from comment #24)
> Do we want to backport this?
> 
> sec-approval+ for trunk.

We want to backport it to beta at least. Is there an additional process I need to follow to get sec-approval for beta?
Revision 1 by
on 
(In reply to Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM] from comment #26)
> Please nominate this for Beta and ESR68 approval when you get a chance.

This patch is somewhat speculative. There was a very high correlation for these crashes with the third party dll in question, but we can't know for certain that this particular dll was causing them. Therefore, I think it makes sense to get this into beta and observe for a while before uplifting to 68. Does this seem reasonable?

(In reply to Al Billings [:abillings] from comment #24)
> Do we want to backport this?
> 
> sec-approval+ for trunk.

We want to backport it to beta at least. Is there an additional process I need to follow to get sec-approval for beta?

Back to Bug 1536227 Comment 29