From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 25 16:59:28 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C9CB1065688 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:59:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-stable-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: from mail1.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail1.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 166948FC15 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:59:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-stable-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: (qmail 26150 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2008 16:32:47 -0000 Received: from dsl092-078-145.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO be-well.ilk.org) ([66.92.78.145]) (envelope-sender ) by mail1.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 25 Sep 2008 16:32:46 -0000 Received: by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix, from userid 1147) id 1A88E28474; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:32:46 -0400 (EDT) To: Jo Rhett References: <40C58F46-D705-4BE0-8AE5-17D901EE381A@netconsonance.com> From: Lowell Gilbert Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:32:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <40C58F46-D705-4BE0-8AE5-17D901EE381A@netconsonance.com> (Jo Rhett's message of "Tue\, 23 Sep 2008 13\:37\:03 -0700") Message-ID: <44abdw9oeq.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: proposed change to support policy for FreeBSD Releases X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:59:28 -0000 Jo Rhett writes: > Each branch is supported by the Security Officer for a limited time > only, and is designated as one of `Early adopter', `Normal', or > Final'. The designation is used as a guideline for determining the > lifetime of the branch as follows. I'm not clear on how this helps. We don't know if there will be a need to produce a 6.5 release, so there's no way to judge whether 6.4 should be designated "final" or not. The only logical answer is to do so, which leaves a substantial chance that there will end up being more than one "final" release on the 6.x line. That's not a particularly desirable situation. In fact, it's worse, because if 6.5 happens, it will probably be because there were problems with 6.4 serious enough that we'd rather people move to 6.5 anyway (at least for critical systems). Be well. Lowell