From owner-freebsd-security Thu Oct 5 23:46:56 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from iclub.nsu.ru (iclub.nsu.ru [193.124.222.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74EE437B66C; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 23:46:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (fjoe@localhost) by iclub.nsu.ru (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA80996; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:43:42 +0700 (NSS) (envelope-from fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:43:42 +0700 (NSS) From: Max Khon To: Neil Blakey-Milner Cc: Brett Glass , Warner Losh , developers@FreeBSD.org, security@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Stable branch In-Reply-To: <20001006014106.A97336@mithrandr.moria.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org hi, there! On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote: > > >Otherwise would do a PR spin with the following patch to 3.x would do > > >the trick (I'd call it -solid, because -stable is suitable for > > >production machines). > > > > Personally, I would equate "-SOLID" with "suitable for production > > machines" whereas -STABLE would be "OK for application developers > > and eager/early adopters but still settling down to the confidence > > level of -SOLID." > > > > Which might imply setting things up so that the -STABLE branch > > becomes -SOLID after, say, a good .2 release. > > Then people will say, "Oh no, it's the first -SOLID release, we should > only start using it after two -SOLID releases". I think ERRATA's for releases should be maintained more actively (they should contain all bug fixes) so that -SOLID will be -RELEASE + patches applied from ERRATA /fjoe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message