From owner-freebsd-security Mon Dec 16 17:36:36 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id RAA23086 for security-outgoing; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 17:36:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from passer.osg.gov.bc.ca (0@passer.osg.gov.bc.ca [142.32.110.29]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id RAA23081 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 17:36:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (15005@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by passer.osg.gov.bc.ca (8.8.4/8.6.10) with SMTP id RAA21872; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 17:33:42 -0800 (PST) From: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group Message-Id: <199612170133.RAA21872@passer.osg.gov.bc.ca> X-Authentication-Warning: passer.osg.gov.bc.ca: 15005@localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Reply-to: cschuber@uumail.gov.bc.ca X-Mailer: MH X-Sender: cschuber To: Warner Losh cc: Marc Slemko , Adam Kubicki , freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: why is -stable not secure? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 16 Dec 96 15:05:32 MST." Date: Mon, 16 Dec 96 17:33:41 -0800 X-Mts: smtp Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > In message Marc Sl emko writes: > : Because no one has put them there. They can be there the second after > : they are in -current if they are put there; that happens when the person > : committing them feels confident enough in the patch and has the time to. > > Likely because no one is confortable enough making blind commits to > the -stable branch. I've put a few deltas into the stable branch, but > only after finding people to test them. It is much harder than it > would appear. > > -stable is dead dead dead dead. (the CVS branch based on 2.1.x that > is). If you are worried about security, running 2.2 when it is > released may be your best bet. When will 2.2 be out? Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437 Cy Schubert OV/VM: BCSC02(CSCHUBER) Open Systems Support BITNET: CSCHUBER@BCSC02.BITNET ITSD Internet: cschuber@uumail.gov.bc.ca cschuber@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca "Quit spooling around, JES do it."