Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 01:10:54 -0800 From: Jo Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com> To: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.org, current <current@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006) Message-ID: <20060105091054.GF1358@svcolo.com> In-Reply-To: <20051223030813.GD63497@over-yonder.net> References: <43A266E5.3080103@samsco.org> <20051217220021.GB93998@svcolo.com> <20051218023725.GM63497@over-yonder.net> <20051222210904.GH39174@svcolo.com> <20051223030813.GD63497@over-yonder.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 01:09:04PM -0800 I heard the voice of > Jo Rhett, and lo! it spake thus: > > > > No, you're missing the point. More core OS upgrades means less > > incremental patches (which are easier to apply than a full update). On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 09:08:13PM -0600, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > Right. I don't understand how B follows A here. > > These patches come from where? Security advisories, mailing list > discussions, and eating too much beef right before bed and waking up > at 2am with brilliant ideas? Why would there be less of them, just > because RELENG_X_Y_RELEASE tags are laid down more often? FreeBSD provides patches for two major OS revisions, right? If you have more OS revisions in less time, then you have a smaller window of support time. Simple. -- Jo Rhett senior geek SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060105091054.GF1358>