Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 08:29:47 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: why is -stable not secure? Message-ID: <199612171529.IAA08893@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.961216232735.10949G-100000@alive.ampr.ab.ca> References: <199612170512.WAA07056@rocky.mt.sri.com> <Pine.BSF.3.95.961216232735.10949G-100000@alive.ampr.ab.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Fine. Provide the resources for someone to patch 2.1. > > Please elaborate on "resources". Do you not think it should be done in > the main CVS repository, or are you referring to the manpower required to > do the work? Manpower and/or incentives for manpower. In the past, I offered to integrate any/all changes to the -stable branch from the 'users', which include a large number of commercial folks who rely on FreeBSD for their business. I didn't receive *one* patch from anyone, and instead had to do all my own testing and such to bring in stability/security patches to stable that I felt were necessary. I thinks it's nice that everyone likes stable, but no-one was willing to do anything to keep it updated, so I withdrew my offer because of the obvious lack of interest in outside people doing work. I'm now focusing my energies on current. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612171529.IAA08893>