From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Apr 19 16:31:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA22928 for stable-outgoing; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 16:31:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.uniserve.com (mercury.uniserve.com [204.191.197.248]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA22922 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 16:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from haven.uniserve.com (shell.uniserve.com [198.53.215.121]) by mercury.uniserve.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id QAA02390; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 16:25:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 16:36:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Samplonius To: Martin Jangowski cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is there a perceived need for a 2.1.8 release? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 19 Apr 1997, Martin Jangowski wrote: > > > > The -stable branch seems to be ticking along still, something which I > > think is *good* since many customers of 2.1.7 still need a place to go > > for the critical bug fixes and -stable is a fine place to get them > > from, but I'm wondering if Yet Another Release along that branch (and > > I'm going to wise up and stop referring to anything on this branch as > > "the last release" :-) would be merited. > > > > [...] > > > > > Anyway, given that proviso, what do those who are still running 2.1.x > > think of this? > > > > > 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. > > Martin > > | Martin Jangowski E-Mail: maja@birdland.rhein-neckar.de | > | Voice: +49 621/53 95 06 Fax: +49 621/53 95 07 | > | Snail Mail: Koenigsbacher Str. 16 D-67067 Ludwigshafen Germany | > | RNInet e.V. Rhein-Neckar Internet | > > > That's not the point. Fixes will put committed to 2.1-stable as long as developers work on it. The point is whether this should be converted into releases once in a while. Considering the downtime a re-install causes, I would guess that nearly everyone would much rather keep 2.1.x systems up to date via cvsup. Tom