[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:27:50PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > especially given the requirement that you need <= 2 buildds.
> I consider that requirement to be not warranted, and indeed unjustified.
> If I had to think of a rationale for it, the only one I could think of
> would be "the architecture needs to be fast enough not to block security
> updates".
> However, I consider an update whose $ARCH binaries are released a week
> later not to be a problem. 

I think a lot of users would consider it a problem.  Imagine, would you be
happy with a highly visible public announcement of every vulnerability
against your servers, a week before you got the fix?

- Matt

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: