Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:43:42 +0700 (NSS) From: Max Khon <fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru> To: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> Cc: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, developers@FreeBSD.org, security@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Stable branch Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0010061341370.80621-100000@iclub.nsu.ru> In-Reply-To: <20001006014106.A97336@mithrandr.moria.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0010061341370.80621-100000>