Re: How to keep kernel up-to-date with Security/Errata Fixes?

[Caballito de San Vicente <Fly_Dragon_Fly@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:14:07 +0200
"Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <corecode@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 26.03.2006, at 04:00, Dragronfly Kernel List User wrote:
>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  you might want
> to insert $realname here, or at least spell "DragonFly" correctly...
> 
Sorry about that, fixed now (more or less).   :)

 ...

> 
> How can you state that patches are commited without thorough
> testing? First of all you don't know how much testing the developers
> actually do before committing the patch.  And secondly, patches which
> go to -release are security and bug fixes ONLY.  We don't add
> features to -release like freebsd does on -stable.  You really need
> to read documentation before making such claims.

I was making no claim, I was simply making an observation based on my
perception of the fast speed that some patches are committed.  You are
right though, I should read the documentation more thoroughly and will
do so.

Not sure why the tenor of your reply is so angry and defensive.  I
asked questions to further my knowledge and not to criticize Dragonfly
or its developers.

> ... 
> 
> > If this is in fact the way DF RELEASE releases come out, I fail to
> > see why a 1.6.2 would be "safer" than the official 1.6.0 (or for
> > that matter
> > 1.4.3 vs. 1.40).
> 
> It is not, in fact.
> 
> > I'm simply trying to plan for the best release to install on the
> > production server.
> 
> Always the latest release.
> 
> ...

Here I'm confused again.  Do you mean the latest full release (1.4.0)
or the latest tag (1.4.3)?

Thank you.