Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork5.2k
added some more information about the security process#2696
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Conversation
greggles commentedJun 4, 2013
I see two deficiencies in the current policy:
I reviewed the ezPublish security releases from 2012:
I don't know the details of those and whether there were active exploits in the wild, but there seems to be a preference for weekday releases. |
scor commentedJun 4, 2013
@greggles The changes in this PR do mention the 2 week period ("When the issue is not known to be exploited in the wild, a period of two weeks seems like a reasonable amount of time.") as well the preference for Drupal to release on Wednesdays. I guess the next question for@fabpot is whether it could be stated that Symfony would try to target Tue for security releases (for the reasons mentioned by greggles). |
scor commentedJun 4, 2013
On a related note, I think it would also help to start using this new collaboration model (once finalized) going forward before Drupal 8.0 is released, so we can validate it and get used to it. Drupal 8.0 is not going be released before the end of the year or beginning of 2014, so we have at least 6 months or so in front of us to start using this new model. |
greggles commentedJun 4, 2013
Right you are. I hadn't noticed that this issue was associated with a commit. That said, the language still feels overly non-committal. |
added some more information about the security process
Hi guys! I've merged this in - since it's for the documentation, it's more of a description of the currently-accepted model rather than what it perhapsshould be, which I'm sure will continue :). Thanks! |
No description provided.