3 ms·
Before reaching out to words like "abuse" for what is ultimately a hotfix, perhaps you should read the article. In particular: > Second, we need a mechanism to
by calcifer 7y ago
Before reaching out to words like "abuse" for what is ultimately a hotfix, perhaps you should read the article. In particular:
> Second, we need a mechanism to be able to quickly push updates to our users even when — especially when — everything else is down. It was great that we are able to use the Studies system, but it was also an imperfect tool that we pressed into service, and that had some undesirable side effects. In particular, we know that many users have auto-updates enabled but would prefer not to participate in Studies and that’s a reasonable preference (true story: I had it off as well!) but at the same time we need to be able to push updates to our users; whatever the internal technical mechanisms, users should be able to opt-in to updates (including hot-fixes) but opt out of everything else.
- chrisseaton 7y agoI have read the article - and accusing users of not doing so is against the site guidelines here by the way. Mozilla previously told us > we have created a set of principles that we will always follow when shipping a SHIELD study to our users, and two principles are most relevant to this situation. > A SHIELD study must be designed to answer a specific question. What question did this hot fix answer? None. So what’s the point in the policy and promise if they’re doing to disregard it. It was supposed to be there to stop what went wrong last time. It’s like they disabled a safety put in after the last bad accident.