Ivan Voras wrote: > Chris wrote: > >> and its for a desktop element of the os, does it matter if servers >> running FreeBSD have to remain on vulnerable versions of ports as a >> result of this? > > This looks like another call to have RELENG_x branches on ports, with > which I agree.
Hmm... Branching is not about "to do it, or not to do it", but about "who will invest their time to do it". By making it as an official offer we have to make sure that: - "STABLE" branch is well maintained. What's the rule of "MFC" in these branches? For src/ the answer is clear, but for ports/ I do not think it's obvious. What's the standard choosing particular ports' version? Who will be responsible for that? - packages are continuously built and mirrored. This could cause confusion about "should I use -HEAD ports/, or RELENG_X ports/?" Not to mention that it needs a doubled computation resource for package cluster. So, while I agree that having branches is a very nice idea I feel that it is not quite exercisable at the moment. It's easy for committers to do "make universe" to verify that their work does not break build, but it's not that easy for porters to make sure that a commit does not break the -STABLE branch... Cheers, -- Xin LI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve!
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
