Re: Regarding latest errata

I agree. Your initial response was all I needed, I thought I needed more because I'm an absolutist. -- Patrick Harper paia...@fastmail.com On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, at 10:28, Theo de Raadt wrote: > What a futile and pointless discussion. > > > Assuming that is the case, was it 6.3 or 6.1 that

Re: Regarding latest errata

What a futile and pointless discussion. > Assuming that is the case, was it 6.3 or 6.1 that was not 'active' > from the 2nd to the 15th? Conveniently the original 6.3 release dates > are now censored on the website, but if it had been built for the > projected date then it would not have needed

Re: Regarding latest errata

Assuming that is the case, was it 6.3 or 6.1 that was not 'active' from the 2nd to the 15th? Conveniently the original 6.3 release dates are now censored on the website, but if it had been built for the projected date then it would not have needed the 14th patches. -- Patrick Harper

Re: Regarding latest errata

> What changed was that there was a period after 6.3 was pushed out the > door (2-15 April) in which there were effectively three active > releases and the project felt obliged to support 6.1 until 6.3's > projected release date. My previous post attempted to review a > possible workaround, though

Re: Regarding latest errata

What changed was that there was a period after 6.3 was pushed out the door (2-15 April) in which there were effectively three active releases and the project felt obliged to support 6.1 until 6.3's projected release date. My previous post attempted to review a possible workaround, though I

Re: Regarding latest errata

Huh? We've told everyone 2 releases maintained with errata/syspatches, 6 months apart, only. Nothing changed here. We don't need to change a single word about EOL. It is exactly the same as before. > The best solution I can think of is planning, announcing and > implementing oldstable EOLs in

Re: Regarding latest errata

The best solution I can think of is planning, announcing and implementing oldstable EOLs in advance, but I'm not sure this would kill enough time in building patches to be worth a process change, and users would have to trade patches for contingency. Make of this whatever you will, I don't know

Re: Regarding latest errata

Theo de Raadt writes: > Official release date of 6.3 is April 15. Yes, the release went out > the door early, but the *official* date is April 15. The release date is wrong in index.html, following patch fix the date to April 15 th. Index: index.html

Re: Regarding latest errata

Patrick Harper wrote: > Unless I am mistaken, the errata posted on the 14th April is the first > that has been applied to more than two releases, implying that > 6.1-stable is still supported. Does this signify a change to the > lifecycle process? No it does not indicate

Regarding latest errata

Hi All, Unless I am mistaken, the errata posted on the 14th April is the first that has been applied to more than two releases, implying that 6.1-stable is still supported. Does this signify a change to the lifecycle process? Regards, -- Patrick Harper paia...@fastmail.com