Linux 2.4.2{3,4} + vulnerabilities.

Alex Groenewoud alex at
Mon Jan 26 14:02:03 PST 2004

Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:49:57 -0700
> Gerard Beekmans <gerard at> wrote:
> > When branching was first brought up, we decided it was overkill for
> > our uses. Has this opinion changed lately?

When the 5.1 branch was first made, it was done right after the release
of 5.0.  That was a mistake, as you then have to keep merging the two
branches: 5.1 and head.  A branch should be created as short as possible
before a release.  When you think CVS is just about ready for a release,
then you branch.  This allows CVS to proceed, while the 5.x branch goes 
through its cycle of prereleases nearly unchanged.

> Note though that the package version argument in
> this case is almost redundant in this particular case as they're
> all up to date aside from the man-pages.

But after the branch this could change any day.  They would be updated
in HEAD, but not in the release branch.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list