From owner-freebsd-stable  Tue Apr 22 17:29:15 1997
Return-Path: <owner-stable>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA19976
          for stable-outgoing; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 17:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA19952
          for <stable@freebsd.org>; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 17:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rover.village.org [127.0.0.1] 
	by rover.village.org with esmtp (Exim 1.60 #1)
	id 0wJpvK-00008q-00; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 18:28:38 -0600
To: Martin Jangowski <bsd@birdland.rhein-neckar.de>
Subject: Re: Is there a perceived need for a 2.1.8 release? 
Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, stable@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 19 Apr 1997 18:54:07 +0200."
		<Pine.BSF.3.94.970419185000.21106A-100000@birdland.rhein-neckar.de> 
References: <Pine.BSF.3.94.970419185000.21106A-100000@birdland.rhein-neckar.de>  
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 18:28:38 -0600
From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Message-Id: <E0wJpvK-00008q-00@rover.village.org>
Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In message
<Pine.BSF.3.94.970419185000.21106A-100000@birdland.rhein-neckar.de>
Martin Jangowski writes: 
: Of course! As master over 11 heavily loaded machines, all running 2.1.7.1
: very successfully, I can't see myself changing them all to 2.2.x. I think
: that 2.1.7.1 is going to stay for a long time, so I'd appreciate the idea
: of fixing security bugs in the 2.1.x-line very much.

I plan on continuing to integrate security fixes into 2.1.x that I
make to -current and 2.2.x until such time as it is obvious no body
cares (generally that means that I get/see 1 request for this sort of
thing every month or two).

Sadly, I have stopped any other activity in the 2.1.x branch.  I've
moved all the machines I have at that rev to newer versions a while
ago and am happy at that rev.

Warner