Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 11:03:42 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Ralph Huntington <rjh@mohawk.net>, "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Stable branch Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20001005105420.04a7b540@localhost> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0010050546550.8007-100000@mohegan.mohawk.net > References: <20001004220906.D50210@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 04:06 AM 10/5/2000, Ralph Huntington wrote:
>Stable branch is very important for production use and should incorporate
>bug fixes and security patches, but not feature enhancements. The extent
>of support and maintenance for stable should be one major release prior to
>the latest release (not current), i.e., since 4.x-RELEASE is the latest,
>then 3.x-STABLE hould be supported with bug fixes and security patches
>until a 5.x-RELEASE is out.
>
>Does this seem unreasonable? -=r=-
Perhaps this should be formalized as three branches:
Branch name: Bug/security New features? "Breakable" for
fixes? a day or more?
-PRODUCTION YES NO NO
-STABLE YES YES, PREFERABLY NO
AFTER TESTING
IN -CURRENT
-DEVELOPMENT YES YES YES
(formerly -CURRENT)
What do you think of this as a model for what people seem to be
asking for?
--Brett
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?4.3.2.7.2.20001005105420.04a7b540>