From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Mar 20 23:42:24 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from sdmail0.sd.bmarts.com (sdmail0.sd.bmarts.com [209.247.77.155]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D46B37B71C for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 23:42:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gordont@bluemtn.net) Received: from localhost (gordont@localhost) by sdmail0.sd.bmarts.com (8.11.3/8.11.2/BMA1.1) with ESMTP id f2L7fRO30139; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 23:41:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 23:41:27 -0800 (PST) From: Gordon Tetlow X-X-Sender: To: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" Cc: , , Subject: Re: 4.3-BETA In-Reply-To: <20010320213334.56106fcd.steveo@eircom.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: > On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 20:53:50 -0800 > Kent Stewart wrote: > KS> > - -RELEASE branch doesn't change. To my mind this is all backwards. > KS> Not in my mind. The -release branch always has something wrong with it > > But -release is *not* a branch, it is a point. It cannot change, it > exists on vast numbers of CDs, the release is what got burned on all those > CDs. Not being someone with any authority... I've heard rumblings to the effect that in the future, -release *will* be a branch and major things (ie security fixes) will be back ported to it. But the only people that would be able to confirm this would be the security officer (Kris I believe) and the release officer (Jordan). -gordon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message