From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Nov 2 04:08:24 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA00537 for freebsd-questions-outgoing; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 04:08:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA00531 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 04:08:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cmascott@world.std.com) Received: from world.std.com by europe.std.com (8.7.6/BZS-8-1.0) id HAA16248; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 07:08:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by world.std.com (TheWorld/Spike-2.0) id AA06868; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 07:08:16 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 07:08:16 -0500 From: cmascott@world.std.com (Carl Mascott) Message-Id: <199811021208.AA06868@world.std.com> To: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Official maintenance policy for -stable? Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG One of the FreeBSD developers just committed a fix to -stable for me. This particular fix had been made to -current a long time ago. The developer told me that the policy is that, if a bug is fixed in -current it's considered as being fixed period, case closed. There must be more to it than this or there would be far fewer bug fixes than there are in each 2.2.x-R release. What is the official policy about fixing bugs in -stable? Please e-mail me directly. I don't subscribe to freebsd-questions. -- Carl Mascott cmascott@world.std.com uunet!world!cmascott To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message