Richard Caley wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Lefteris Tsintjelis (lt) writes: > > lt> If its a matter of "never committed at all" (I do have a few doubts on this one) > lt> then I guess I have no other choice here but -STABLE or at least some other >branch > lt> that is at least maintained. So, which one might that be? > > If STABLE has become de-facto a development branch, and RELEASE needs > to remain rack solid so it can be treated as having had all the > pre-release testing on it, making people reluctant to put in any but > the safest fixes, perhaps it would be a good idea if there were a > system of official patches to RELEASE. These could come with a proviso > that they have been tested to STABLE standards, but not to RELEASE > standards, but if you absolutely need the fix...
I think the best thing is to keep things as simple as possible. That would probably complicate things even further for a not so expert user. I personally think that a fix should always be a fix and should apply to all (-STABLE or -RELEASE or whatever reliable or not branch might that be). It is only a matter if you have been bitten by it or not. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
