Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 11:32:34 -0700 (PDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk>, "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org>, Ralph Huntington <rjh@mohawk.net> Subject: Re: Stable branch Message-ID: <XFMail.001005113234.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001005105420.04a7b540@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 05-Oct-00 Brett Glass wrote: > 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 This is called sticking with a release and applying security patches as they are released. It already exists. > -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? Seems to be the one we are already using. > --Brett -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use 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?XFMail.001005113234.jhb>