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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> > 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. Natehome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612171529.IAA08893>