From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8EB1138B7F for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 17:00:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 94717E09BD; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 17:00:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EDE5E092F for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 17:00:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E320340444 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 17:00:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.982 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.982 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=1.214, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id msHmu22qr8I6 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 17:00:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29ED133FFDF for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 17:00:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XkyVh-000536-QE for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2014 18:00:13 +0100 Received: from graaff.xs4all.nl ([83.163.136.193]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 02 Nov 2014 18:00:13 +0100 Received: from graaff by graaff.xs4all.nl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 02 Nov 2014 18:00:13 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Hans de Graaff Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: etiquette for stabilization request Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 17:37:34 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87tx2htz85.fsf@nyu.edu> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: graaff.xs4all.nl User-Agent: Pan/0.139 (Sexual Chocolate; GIT bf56508 git://git.gnome.org/pan2) X-Archives-Salt: 31c50201-f3f7-4b54-8174-b340a0863a33 X-Archives-Hash: 543a1960f3a31e9dca41c2d659ea04eb On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 10:10:34 -0500, gottlieb wrote: > I am running firefox-24.8.0, which is highest stable (highest testing is > 33.0). > > Several sites, in particular mail.google.com, report that "This version > of Firefox is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported > browser". > > Does that warrant a stabilization request. I have never filed one > before and do not have a feeling of what is considered justification. I > should add that other than generating the above complaints, firefox is > working fine (including with mail.google.com). The stable request in this case is a bit hidden, and pending on mesa stabilization: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=525474 Hans