From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 26 11:53:24 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A49BC16A4CE; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:53:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from gw.celabo.org (gw.celabo.org [208.42.49.153]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 691B943D2F; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:53:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nectar@celabo.org) Received: from madman.celabo.org (madman.celabo.org [10.0.1.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "madman.celabo.org", Issuer "celabo.org CA" (verified OK)) by gw.celabo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 187B25482B; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:53:23 -0600 (CST) Received: by madman.celabo.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id AD6F46D455; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:53:22 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:53:22 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" To: Garance A Drosihn Message-ID: <20040126195322.GA76044@madman.celabo.org> References: <200401260008.i0Q08cIl014780@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040126000922.GA6102@madman.celabo.org> <20040126004123.GJ53344@elvis.mu.org> <20040126125638.GC9772@madman.celabo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Url: http://www.celabo.org/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i-ja.1 cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: Alfred Perlstein cc: re@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/contrib/cvs/src server.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:53:24 -0000 On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 02:13:44PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > I have no objection to the change, but it does seem to me that > *any* change to a "security" branch deserves to be mentioned > in UPDATING. I do not agree that we should ignore that policy > simply because this is a "5.x-release" branch. RELENG_5_2 is not really a security branch yet, as it is still in the release engineer's hands. If this CVS change needs an UPDATING entry, then every merge we've done needs an UPDATING entry. I'll leave that up to RE. (RE has already documented the changes in the release notes.) Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine NTT/Verio SME FreeBSD UNIX Heimdal nectar@celabo.org jvidrine@verio.net nectar@freebsd.org nectar@kth.se