On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:58 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/17/2012 1:56 PM, Eric Covener wrote: >>> I'd suggest that patches/apply_to_x.y.z/ is a clumsy notation. It seems >>> more efficient to set these up as patches/CVE-yyyy-iiii/ with individual >>> files for actively (or semi-actively) maintained versions. If there is >>> one patch which applies to 2.2.n < 2.2.17, and a second patch for 2.2.17 >>> and higher, it would be easier to differentiate these all within one >>> directory. >> >> The current scheme has one benefit in that a responsible user on the >> latest release has a one-stop shop for "What do I need to add?". >> >> With the CVE as the directory, they'd have to start with some other >> resource/hint or browse through the descriptions/patches. > > I'm not sure about that. If I have 2.2.18, what do I apply? If there > were patches in .21 how do I know they apply to me? >
Cross your fingers and visit three directories full of patches -- the farther back you stay, the more work you've got in store for you. I don't think you're in much better shape tracking down e.g. 7 CVEs though.
