Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 20:51:59 -0500 From: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: How long for -stable [ Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/finger finger.c ] Message-ID: <20001003205159.A20891@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20001003174313.U27736@fw.wintelcom.net>; from bright@wintelcom.net on Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 05:43:13PM -0700 References: <paul@originative.co.uk> <84222.970618959@winston.osd.bsdi.com> <20001003174313.U27736@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[cc's trimmed a little] On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 05:43:13PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > Might I suggest it'd be pretty helpful to have a couple of speedy > 3.x (and probably 4.x) boxes set up some place with console access > to make these types of fixes easier for our developers lacking in > hardware resources. What about ports? How do you propose that they be tested, as opposed to "it-compiles-so-ship-it" on these 3.x boxes if, say, the developer in question only runs 4.x boxes, with a single not-yet-built 5.x box for when 5.x settles down? Or can we stick with the current ports policy of tracking -stable and -current only, with a good luck to everyone else? And what does this policy mean anyway when we have two -stables, with the package building cluster building for three environments? -aDe -- Ade Lovett, Austin, TX. ade@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD: The Power to Serve http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001003205159.A20891>