On 10/17/2016 02:34 PM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:23:55 Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On 2016-10-17 03:11 PM, Sona Sarmadi wrote:
/General policies: /
* /Fixes must go into master first unless they are applicable only to
the stable branch; if back-porting to an older stable branch, the
fix should first be applied to the newer stable branches before
being back-ported to the older branch/
Does anyone know the reason for the policy above i.e. why fixes have to
go to master first?
The kernel has the same policy for -stable kernels. Speaking at a very
high level, it simply ensures that the development of maintenance/stable
branches does not move ahead of master in terms of fixes.
That keeps development focused on the tip, where it belongs (versus
companies/people working in silos for an extended period of time), since
once in master many branches can benefit from it.
Another way to think about this is what would happen if we didn't fix it in
master first, then forgot to go back and do that? master (and the stable
release that eventually follows from it) would potentially be left without the
fix, so when you upgraded the vulnerability would come back.
That applies for any fix , security or not.
yocto mailing list