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 |