Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 00:00:02 +0200 (IST) From: Roman Shterenzon <roman@xpert.com> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Stable branch Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10010052353520.22615-100000@jamus.xpert.com> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001005105420.04a7b540@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Brett Glass wrote: > 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? There's too much effort has to be done to maintain three branches. The stable branch should be stable like the name implies, and it's stable most of the time. I just think that committers have to be a bit more carefull when bringing in new features. I still cannot forget the DMA/iso9660 breakage :( The stable should be great for production, and, don't forget the simple rule - if your system works fine with 0.99alpha version of some software there's absolutely no reason to upgrade or "track" some branch. So, if the security is not important (I cannot belive I'm saying it in the freebsd-security list) then you can just stick with the release you've installed (of course if it works fine), if the security does matter, then you apply the security fixes by hand and stay cool. Just my 0.02$ P.S. What does it have to do with freebsd-security anyway?! --Roman Shterenzon, UNIX System Administrator and Consultant [ Xpert UNIX Systems Ltd., Herzlia, Israel. Tel: +972-9-9522361 ] 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?Pine.LNX.4.10.10010052353520.22615-100000>