From owner-freebsd-security Fri Apr 26 13:57:17 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from laptop.tenebras.com (laptop.tenebras.com [66.92.188.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 678E937B41C for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 13:57:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 4711 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2002 20:57:12 -0000 Received: from sapphire.tenebras.com (HELO tenebras.com) (66.92.188.241) by 0 with SMTP; 26 Apr 2002 20:57:12 -0000 Message-ID: <3CC9BF27.5060506@tenebras.com> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 13:57:11 -0700 From: Michael Sierchio Reply-To: kudzu@tenebras.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020404 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RELENG_4_4 References: <26251.1019854586@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Sheldon Hearn wrote: > Just so that misinformation isn't spread, please note that the "and > more" in your paragraph isn't true. The RELENG_4_5 branch is strictly > for security fixes. > > The reason I'm confident saying this is that I once tried to have what I > thought was an important bugfix merged onto RELENG_4_4 and my request > was rejected, not on the grounds that the bugfix wasn't important, but > rather on the grounds that it did not address a security concern. Sounds like generalizing from one example. Perusing the CVS logs would indicate that *critical* bug fixes are included, and the majority of these happen to be security related. That's the reason the branch RELENG_X_Y is informally referred to as -SECURITY. (Now if someone could explain why -STABLE has that label, I'd be amused). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message