Bug 1572838 Comment 33 Edit History

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

### ESR Uplift Approval Request
* **If this is not a sec:{high,crit} bug, please state case for ESR consideration**: sec-crit
* **User impact if declined**: See above.
* **Fix Landed on Version**: 70, uplifting to 69
* **Risk to taking this patch**: Medium
* **Why is the change risky/not risky? (and alternatives if risky)**: This alters commandline arg processing and may affect opening Firefox for http(s) links from other apps. We should test carefully, but assuming I haven't messed up, this is fine for the "normal" case of how Firefox is installed and used. If enterprises have done crazy things here in terms of manipulating how Firefox is opened from other apps using the commandline... all bets are off. But there's no realistic way to find out (esp. given paucity of telemetry from enterprise envs) other than landing the patch and seeing what happens...
* **String or UUID changes made by this patch**: nope
### ESR Uplift Approval Request
* **If this is not a sec:{high,crit} bug, please state case for ESR consideration**: sec-crit
* **User impact if declined**: See above.
* **Fix Landed on Version**: 70, uplifting to 69
* **Risk to taking this patch**: Medium
* **Why is the change risky/not risky? (and alternatives if risky)**: This alters commandline arg processing and may affect opening Firefox for http(s) links from other apps. We should test carefully, but assuming I haven't messed up, this is fine for the "normal" case of how Firefox is installed and used. If enterprises have done crazy things here in terms of manipulating how Firefox is opened from other apps using the commandline... all bets are off. But there's no realistic way to find out (esp. given paucity of telemetry from enterprise envs) other than landing the patch and seeing what happens...
* **String or UUID changes made by this patch**: nope

Note: the patches graft cleanly to esr68, too.

Back to Bug 1572838 Comment 33