Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 00:07:17 +0100 From: "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@FreeBSD.org> To: ptitoliv <ptitoliv@frenchsuballiance.cjb.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UPDATING file on FreeBSD Stable Message-ID: <20041203230716.GA753@zaphod.nitro.dk> In-Reply-To: <41B0AB8E.1040008@frenchsuballiance.cjb.net> References: <41B0AB8E.1040008@frenchsuballiance.cjb.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2004.12.03 19:08:14 +0100, ptitoliv wrote: > I have a little question about the UPDATING file on RELENG_5 branch. I=20 > have received a security advisory about procfs for my FreeBSD-STABLE.=20 > While looking the text of this mail, I saw that the UPDATING file was=20 > updating on all RELENG_X.X branches but not in the stable branch. Why not= ? On the development branches (-CURRENT and -STABLE) UPDATING is used for changes which users should be aware since they could cause problems. Security fixes rarely fits this "requirement". On the security / errata branches (RELENG_X_Y) UPDATING is used to document all changes, so people know exactly what to expect, since only very important changes go into those branches. So, in short the reason is that UPDATING has different goals on the different branches. At least I think that is the reason, I'm actually not 100% sure... :-). --=20 Simon L. Nielsen --x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBsPGkh9pcDSc1mlERAv8zAKCH0ezfALvUvplDIAwlzV1WPJ3doACfTIGg yLYo7xu2M/3HKLQ7BJGt/DU= =qz26 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041203230716.GA753>