On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 22:06, Tilghman Lesher wrote: > On Wednesday 10 September 2003 14:32, Chris Albertson wrote: > > > >Read the security vulnerability. It referenced CVS > > > > > > as of a certain > > > > > > >date. If you aren't keeping up with CVS changes, > > > > > > why are you running > > > > > > >CVS at all? > > > > One would hope people are not using the latest CVS > > checkup as their production system. Most sane people > > do a bit better quality control and testing then that > > on a misson critical system. So fielded systems are > > likely to be a bit in back of CVS. > > Odd, I've found CVS-current to be extremely stable, so I run it on all > of our production machines. No machine is ever more than a couple > weeks out of sync with CVS (except for a few machines in the field > which I can't get to right now).
The stability of CVS isn't the reason not to be running it on a production machine. I personally can't bring machines down that often. In fact, I had to cut people off to get sip unloaded. -- Steven Critchfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
