Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 16:56:28 -0700 From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@osd.bsdi.com> To: will@physics.purdue.edu Cc: imp@village.org, sheldonh@starjuice.net, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc rc Message-ID: <20010609165628U.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: <20010609182553.E9537@bohr.physics.purdue.edu> References: <200106091621.f59GLPl15943@billy-club.village.org> <20010609123918I.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> <20010609182553.E9537@bohr.physics.purdue.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Because we did not want to raise the scenario of n-way merges, where n is an increasingly large number, for a group of people who are already overworked and frequently behind the curve simply trying to maintain *one* -stable branch. The only way we could get unanimous agreement to create the new branch in the first place was to make a pact that we would only merge the most critical items. Medium-to-serious fixes are excluded from that list. - Jordan From: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc rc Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 18:25:53 -0500 > On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 12:39:18PM -0700, Jordan Hubbard (jkh@osd.bsdi.com) wrote: > > Just as a point of clarification, it's not _only_ the security > > officer. The release engineer also reserves the right to check in > > show-stopper fixes and roll point releases from this branch. :) > > Could you remind me why medium-to-serious bugfixes were excluded? > Because any production server/network operator would tell you > that they'd like those fixed too, not just security holes. And I > believe that's for whom the branch is intended. > > -- > wca To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010609165628U.jkh>