On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 21:38, Spider wrote: > begin quote > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 21:00:57 +0000 > Matt Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > btw, didn't you mean to post this to the list?
Apologies, I did, yes (first post woes!) > > > No, in fact not. > > > For Corporate use in this case, we should release a snapshot, > > > reduced > > > tree, stable tree, or something like that. > > > Then -NEVER- -EVER- Change that. > > > > There was the mention of security updates being added, would surely > > would be beneficial, even essential, to the tree? > > > > > No, see the post for rationale. > The -RELEASE- tree should -NEVER EVER- Change. Errata (that is security > updates and critical bugfixes) should be released as a -SEPARATE- tree. > > Adding extra emphasis here. Fair enough, that makes sense, though I suspect that most companies/organisations that would use *any* tree would want to keep up with security releases - making the "release" tree unused - unless the proposal was that anything that may need essential (e.g. security) patches went in a separate tree (sorry if this is the case, I missed the start of this discussion). -- http://www.mattsscripts.co.uk/ - A great source for free CGI and stuff I AM DEATH, NOT TAXES. I TURN UP ONLY ONCE. (Feet of Clay) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
