Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 20:20:05 -0700 From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, 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: <3175.970802405@winston.osd.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: Message from Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> of "Thu, 05 Oct 2000 22:53:55 EDT." <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1001005224010.57431A-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I'm not sure I see the n-way merge. > .. > When a fix is required, you merge it into -STABLE, and then if > appropriate, into the release branch also. Which is the n-way aspect. You've just increased the amount of merging by n, where n is each active "release branch" you choose to support rather than being able to merge once to the branch head and point people at that. Sure, you can say it's only for the most minor patches and such and merge work will be minimal, but in order to support a user assumption that they can install release x and then stay on the release x branch from there on out, someone still has to remember to merge to several locations rather than one now. Ick. > 1) I have a release, it has been tested extensively for production > deployment, and I don't want to track -STABLE. I do want to be able to It's only because they really wanted to track -SOLID that they currently feel that way. :) - Jordan 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?3175.970802405>