<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-15"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Rod Dorman wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid393913036.20051121010200@polylogics.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Sunday, November 20, 2005, 17:24:03, SteveK wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Nov 20, 2005, at 5:07 PM, Rod Dorman wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> ...
The only remaining question I have is will any bug/security patches
ever be applied to the v1-2-0 branch, i.e. is there ever any point to
doing a "cvs update -r v1-2-0" ?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">v1-2-0 is probably not a branch, but a tag; so (unless the tags are
moved), it would never change. It is probably exactly equivalent to
v1.2.0.
If you already have v1.2.0, cvs update -r v1-2-0 should do nothing.
It's there to document exactly what v1.2.0 is; similarly, v1-2-1 will
document v1.2.1, etc.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
OK, I guess the question I should be asking is, is there a branch based
on version 1.2.0 that will have critical bug and security patches
applied to it but not experimental/new feature code changes.
It would be the equivalent of what OpenBSD calls the patch or stable
branch <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.openbsd.org/stable.html">http://www.openbsd.org/stable.html</a> essentially it's what one
would want to track on a production system.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
That would be v1-2. I'm not sure if you want to "track" that before
releases or not, though, and I don't know what the policy is regarding
new features, etc, but it should contain much less risky changes than
the trunk does.<br>
<br>
-SteveK<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>