Re: [Tails-dev] Please review blueprint for FAQ

Delete this message

Reply to this message
Autore: sajolida
Data:  
To: The Tails public development discussion list
Oggetto: Re: [Tails-dev] Please review blueprint for FAQ
intrigeri:
> I've pushed a few minor rephrasing and typo fixes (96d6899, 5a2ee0a).


I love them!

> Regarding "We are working on a 64-bit version of Tails see ticket
> #5456.", given feature/amd64-kernel was merged for 0.23, perhaps this
> should be rephrased.


I think the right way to handle those changes in what Tails does in the
FAQ is to explicitly state which version does what. Then a few months
later we can drop that info.

Regarding the Git workflow, topic branches should fix the FAQ according
to whatever change they bring. I'm not saying they should fill up the
FAQ in advance but they should make sure that the FAQ is still correct
after the branch is released.

Regarding the 64-bit version, can you review commit 9e26e56 in devel?

> Same for the section about MAC spoofing


Done in commit 493f10d, merged into devel.

> the "The New Identity feature of the web browser is not available
> anymore (ticket ticket #6383)" note.


Done in commit a2a417d straight into devel.

> Regarding "the user-agent property of the browser is set to
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.3)
> Gecko/20100401 Firefox/3.6.3, as of Tails 0.21 and TBB 2.3.25-13":
> I guess we won't maintain this information up-to-date, so perhaps
> directly say "was set"?


Fixed

> Regarding "Why is the time set wrong?", perhaps point to the ticket
> for TailsClock?


Fixed.

> Regarding "Does Tails collect information about its users?":
> incremental upgrades are now enabled by default, which is another
> instance of "calling home". The version of Tails being used is also
> sent in the requested URL (as well as the architecture, but currently
> this does not matter since everybody is i386). For details, see:
> https://tails.boum.org/contribute/design/incremental_upgrades/#index7h3
> Also, the regular security check is nowadays only used for unresolved
> security issues, and not for announcing new versions anymore.


Fixed.

> I see many links to tickets in this document. I think a step should be
> added to the release process (near the end, where the RM must mark the
> "Fix committed" tickets as resolved) to update this page accordingly.


Ok, what about commit 7dc5d83 then?

--
sajolida