| 1 |
On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 21:38, Spider wrote: |
| 2 |
> begin quote |
| 3 |
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 21:00:57 +0000 |
| 4 |
> Matt Wilson <matt@×××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> btw, didn't you mean to post this to the list? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Apologies, I did, yes (first post woes!) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> > > No, in fact not. |
| 11 |
> > > For Corporate use in this case, we should release a snapshot, |
| 12 |
> > > reduced |
| 13 |
> > > tree, stable tree, or something like that. |
| 14 |
> > > Then -NEVER- -EVER- Change that. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > There was the mention of security updates being added, would surely |
| 17 |
> > would be beneficial, even essential, to the tree? |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> No, see the post for rationale. |
| 22 |
> The -RELEASE- tree should -NEVER EVER- Change. Errata (that is security |
| 23 |
> updates and critical bugfixes) should be released as a -SEPARATE- tree. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Adding extra emphasis here. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Fair enough, that makes sense, though I suspect that most |
| 28 |
companies/organisations that would use *any* tree would want to keep up |
| 29 |
with security releases - making the "release" tree unused - unless the |
| 30 |
proposal was that anything that may need essential (e.g. security) |
| 31 |
patches went in a separate tree (sorry if this is the case, I missed the |
| 32 |
start of this discussion). |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
http://www.mattsscripts.co.uk/ |
| 36 |
- A great source for free CGI and stuff |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
I AM DEATH, NOT TAXES. I TURN UP ONLY ONCE. (Feet of Clay) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives