On Tuesday 28 September 2010 09:57:04 Robert Collins wrote: > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Julian Edwards > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 28 September 2010 02:07:50 Robert Collins wrote: > >> And at that point, if we have a security issue we have to deploy asap; > >> we'd do the following: > >> - cowboy it out there [and keep it as a cowboy on future deploys] > >> - land a regular branch fixing it for good > >> - remove the cowboy when the regular branch has been incorporated > >> into the main deployed codebase. > > > > We do have some security issues where we don't work on them "ASAP". I'd > > imagine in this scenario we'd be still using a private (unlanded) branch > > and get it eventually cowboyed before landing? > > If its so low priority that we don't work on it ASAP we could just > land a regular branch- not labelled 'zomg fix security hole xxx' > though :).
Well there are some where we need to take some time to think about them and those that are not obviously exploitable, but need privacy nonetheless. > Or yes, private branch, cowboy and land. That still seems reasonable to me. Thanks for making the process easier! _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
