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 paia...@fastmail.com On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, at 08:57, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > 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 suspect this sort of anomaly might not > > be practically avoidable. > > You are making stuff up. >
