Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 01:16:16 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Roman Kennke <roman@ontographics.com> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: RELEASE_X_Y_Z branches/tags maintained?? Message-ID: <20041025081616.GA73266@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <1098686273.666.5.camel@moonlight> References: <1098641975.705.10.camel@moonlight> <20041024223051.GA94197@xor.obsecurity.org> <1098686273.666.5.camel@moonlight>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--lrZ03NoBR/3+SXJZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 08:37:54AM +0200, Roman Kennke wrote: > Am Mo, den 25.10.2004 schrieb Kris Kennaway um 0:30: > > On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 08:19:36PM +0200, Roman Kennke wrote: > > > Hello list, > > >=20 > > > I have a question regarding the branches/tags of the ports tree for > > > stable releases. Are they in any way maintained. > >=20 > > No. >=20 > Hmm, wouldn't this be a good thing to do, especially on production > machines? I would greatly appreciate that. I see no reason to do major > updates (like x.1 -> x.2 only to get fixes in. For production machines I > would prefer some kind of stability and conservativism. > What is the problem with such a setup? Lack of interest? Lack of > manpower? Or wrong philosophy? Lack of manpower - it's a lot of extra work, and we already don't do a great job of keeping up with the incoming PR load. Kris --lrZ03NoBR/3+SXJZ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBfLZQWry0BWjoQKURAq6lAJ0XbZ+vPArvJ3HC9e4wlarRPnTA1wCgw2AY SjlcoExKP2x797Bi7jXHTY0= =2ulW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --lrZ03NoBR/3+SXJZ--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041025081616.GA73266>