From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Dec 16 22:41:24 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id WAA03575 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 22:41:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from scanner.worldgate.com (scanner.worldgate.com [198.161.84.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id WAA03566 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 22:41:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from znep.com (uucp@localhost) by scanner.worldgate.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with UUCP id XAA12403; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 23:41:11 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (marcs@localhost) by alive.ampr.ab.ca (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA13068; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 23:40:59 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 23:40:59 -0700 (MST) From: Marc Slemko X-Sender: marcs@alive.ampr.ab.ca To: Nate Williams cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: why is -stable not secure? In-Reply-To: <199612170512.WAA07056@rocky.mt.sri.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Nate Williams wrote: > Fine. Provide the resources for someone to patch 2.1. Please elaborate on "resources". Do you not think it should be done in the main CVS repository, or are you referring to the manpower required to do the work? I agree that, unless they want to, it isn't desirable for developers to spend anything more than a trivial amount of time with the 2.1 branch. However, I think that setting up a seperate distribution method would be counterproductive. I started this thread for a reason. I'm trying to figure out the best way for me, and any other willing souls, to try to make this work. I am not interested in continuing 2.1 development but just maintainence in key areas. What I will probably end up doing is simply making patches and seeing what happens to them, since that is more often than not the way to get things accomplished, but first I wanted to get any input that anyone has to offer. Thanks.