From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 26 11:13:48 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB7E916A4CE; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.server.rpi.edu (smtp1.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11FD043D2F; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp1.server.rpi.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0QJDk1q030732; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:13:46 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040126125638.GC9772@madman.celabo.org> References: <200401260008.i0Q08cIl014780@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040126000922.GA6102@madman.celabo.org> <20040126004123.GJ53344@elvis.mu.org> <20040126125638.GC9772@madman.celabo.org> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:13:44 -0500 To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" , Alfred Perlstein From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: re@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/contrib/cvs/src server.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:13:48 -0000 At 6:56 AM -0600 1/26/04, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > >Seriously, if we were talking about 4.x I might have more >sympathy, but I believe this is an appropriate behavior to >change in a 5.x release. > >Apparently the CVS developers also felt this was an appropriate >change for minor point release. > >Finally, there was overwhelming support for this change: over >the past month I've received several requests for it; and RE >received several requests to incorporate the change in 5.2.1. 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. [aside: actually, I think it would be more appropriate to call these something like "safe" branches, but that's a bikeshed of a different color...] -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu