At 06:19 PM 3/18/2002 -0500, Steve Shorter wrote:
> What is lacking inf FreeBSD is a 4.5-RELEASE with
>security fixes AND bug fixes.
>
> -STABLE includes "new material" which can be unstable.
>And -SECURITY only has "security fixes" but not bug fixes
>in general, since the last RELEASE.

RELENG_4_X was (still is) open to critical bug fixes, but generally it's
used for critical *security* related bug fixes. The problem is (at least)
two folded as I see it:

1) Because bug fixes are generally addressed in -STABLE with the forward
looking goal of releasing a new -RELEASE snapshot some time in the future,
to backport the same bug fix to a -RELEASE codebase (essentially what
RELENG_4_X is) can be a lot of work depending on how much the RELENG_4_X
branch differs from the current -STABLE. Kernel dependencies, lib changes,
and the like can hinder the process and even introduce unforeseen bugs back
into the system.

2) How to draw a line in the sand and decide what will be committed to
RELENG_4_X as a fix, and what will require a tracking of -STABLE or the
next -RELEASE. The last thing I want is a second -STABLE branch with lots
of code updates, thus decreasing the overall stability.

With this in mind, only security fixes and the ***most critical*** bugs
should be addressed with RELENG_4_X. Minimize code change, maximize stability.

> -steve

--
Christopher Schulte
http://www.schulte.org/
Do not un-munge my nospam.schulte.org
email address.  This address is valid.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomoFreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]